Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iraq

Michael Penning: What he expects UK troop levels to be in Iraq in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: We have set out our plans for Iraq to spring 2008, when we plan to reduce UK troop numbers in southern Iraq to around 2,500. Decisions on the next phase will be made at that time, guided always by the assessments of our military commanders and the actual conditions on the ground.

Michael Penning: As this is probably the last Defence questions before Christmas, I should like to send our best wishes and condolences to the families and loved ones of the servicemen who have lost their lives, and our wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured, who are still returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
	If we are to reduce our troops in the Iraq field of operations to approximately 2,500, can the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be enough force protection should the current situation deteriorate?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial words, which spoke for everyone in the House, and I associate all on the Government side—and, if I may presume to, everyone else in the House—with them; I am sure that they will be noted. I take this opportunity to commend the hon. Gentleman and thank him on behalf of the whole House for his arrangement of the very welcome welcoming party for 12 Mechanised Brigade in the House. That gave us all an opportunity to say thank you to those brave young men and women for what they have achieved in Afghanistan.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which has also been considered in detail in the welcome Defence Committee report published today. I assure the hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House that all our decisions on troop numbers are taken on the best and most detailed military advice. At the top of all our considerations is force protection. Under no circumstances would we take decisions that meant that we did not have sufficient force protection for those whom we deployed into the theatre in Iraq or anywhere else.

Ann Clwyd: Last week, seven members of the all-party group on Iraq returned from a successful visit to Baghdad. We found that refugees are returning from Syria and Jordan to Iraq because the security situation has improved. May I say that we talked to four American generals and the British general as well as the leading figures in Iraq, and that the mood is one of cautious optimism?

Des Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for two things: first, for her consistent support for the Iraqi people, which stretches well beyond the current circumstances of the operations in Iraq. She consistently supported them through the days of Saddam's despotism and she deserves to have that recorded in the House on as many occasions as possible. Secondly, I thank her for arranging for a cross-section of the House to go to Iraq with her.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend reports back from Iraq what many of us who have recently been there have seen, namely that there is a significant degree of progress. However, that progress is fragile and, as my right hon. Friend well knows, whether it is sustained depends on the Iraqi Government and Iraqi security forces being able to take advantage of the opportunity that the surge and other developments have created.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said about the Defence Committee's report, which is out today. Is he aware of my dismay, and the dismay that I am sure will be felt by all members of the Select Committee, at the headline in the  Daily Mirror today—"UK's Iraq mission a 'failure'"? That is not what the Defence Committee said; it said precisely the reverse. Clearly, there are real problems in Basra, not least with the police, but some of the things that our armed forces have been doing there—training the 10th division of the Iraqi army, for example—have been an outstanding success, and deserve congratulations.

Des Browne: I thank all the members of the Defence Committee and the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs it, for what, I repeat, is a welcome report. It is a balanced report; I read it over the weekend, having had an advance copy of it, and I welcomed it in the press release that I issued this morning.
	To a degree, I share the dismay of the right hon. Gentleman—and, I am sure, that of other members of his Committee—at how the report has been represented in some quarters of the media. However, I have to say that I am getting used to only one side of the Iraq story ever being told. The report is compulsory reading for those who want to know, in a balanced way, what is happening in Iraq.
	Significant progress has been made, and our troops there deserve enormous credit for what they have achieved. I will not go through the list of achievements over the past nine months or thereabouts, in particular, but it is significant. It is a fragile opportunity, however, and the Select Committee has identified the questions that we need to ask and the continuing challenges. In our response to its report, we will endeavour, in so far as we can, to give a comprehensive response to those questions.

Gavin Strang: The House will surely welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of our plans for troop numbers in Iraq, but can he confirm that, beyond the spring of 2008, it is still the intention further to reduce the number of Army personnel in Iraq?

Des Browne: All the responses that I have received to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement to the House about troop numbers have welcomed the reduction, but as against a serious consideration of the conditions on the ground and always qualified by the fact that we need to keep matters under review. It is our plan to reduce troop numbers to 2,500, and over the past 18 months we have consistently been able to meet the plans that we have laid out in advance. Our eventual plan, of course, is that when the Iraqi security forces are able to take over total responsibility for security in the south-eastern part of Iraq, we will hand over to them. However, I believe that we will need to continue to support them beyond that point with some degree of training or mentoring, although that will not need to be done with the numbers that we currently have in theatre. Exactly when we are able to get to that point will depend on developments. We have not yet got to the stage of provincial Iraqi control, although that is planned to happen before the end of the year, and we will need to assess the position then. We will need to carry on as we have over the past months and assess the position as we go along, taking careful steps so that we do not regress.

Nick Harvey: The Defence Secretary says that the goalposts have moved and we can now have 2,500 British troops in Iraq—whereas the Minister for the Armed Forces previously said that we would need 5,000 to ensure their security—because we now know more about the tasks that those 2,500 troops will be undertaking. But how many will be involved in training the Iraqi forces—for example, in operations on the Iran-Iraq border—and what proportion will be reliant on Iraqi security forces for their security?

Des Browne: That issue was raised in some detail in my evidence session before the Select Committee, which may well be the source of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The reason for the difference between myself and the Minister is simply that he was talking at a different time, and the situation has moved on. I accept that the precise figures that the hon. Gentleman looks for will have to be given to the House in the broadest possible sense—consistent with force security, of course—but we are not yet at that stage because we do not yet have provincial Iraqi control. This is all conditions based and based on military advice. As we go along, we will move towards our planned figure of about 2,500 troops. However, the precise figure, as well as exactly which of them will be training and mentoring, which will be involved in operations including protection of routes or operations around the border, and which will be there for force protection and/or to stand ready to support the Iraqi security forces if necessary will be a matter for judgment and military advice at that time. I am not yet in a position to give those precise figures.

Linda Gilroy: I thank the Secretary of State for his comments about the Defence Committee's report. We look forward to receiving his reply. With the space that has been created by our troops for the Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for themselves, what is happening about the economic initiatives planned for Basra province, which the Prime Minister told the House about on 8 October?

Des Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am, however, Secretary of State for Defence, not for development, and I do not want to anticipate announcements that will be made after the time when there is provincial Iraqi control. That will be the appropriate time to make those announcements, because that is when those complementary economic initiatives can be launched. It is no secret that the Government intend to support an economic initiative that is based on Basra, in particular, and is designed to exploit the resources of the Iraqi Government, who have sufficient resources from their oil revenues to be able to invest there. Apart from that, support is available from other countries in the international community to make the best of the oil exploration opportunities, especially given that Basra is a very important city for Iraq because of the port at Umm Qasr and Basra airport, which has been subject to significant development and is now increasingly handling commercial traffic. Such opportunities will be taken forward with the staff of the construction agencies, some of whom are volunteers from the international business community.

Gerald Howarth: Since the Government are maintaining an intention to reintervene in Iraq, what would be the criteria for such reintervention, and where would the men come from, given that the Army is 3,600 men short? According to the Government's most senior military adviser for the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, our reserves to meet the unexpected are almost non-existent. Is it not time that the Secretary of State told the Prime Minister to stop betraying our armed forces and gave the nation's finest the tools to do the job?

Des Browne: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the support this Government have given the armed forces has been second to none in terms of investment. He comes at this issue with the same disability as all of those in his Front-Bench team, which is that he always fails to make a spending commitment—oh no, of course, he did. On "Newsnight" , he made a commitment to spend more on the armed forces, but that was a personal commitment, not one for his Government, as I understand it—sorry, I meant his party in Government.
	As for reintervention, the most important point about the process of provincial Iraqi control is that a judgment is taken as to whether Iraqi security forces are able to look after the security of the province that is handed over to them. We in Government, with the Iraqi Government and our allies, have done that successfully three times now, and on each occasion we have handed over provinces where we have not had to go back and intervene. That has been achieved because part of the calculation involves the ability of the Iraqi security forces to handle problems that may arise. There will be of the order of 50,000 trained Iraqi security forces in the Basra area and surrounding areas by the time we move to provincial Iraqi control. Our judgment is that the responsibility for an area lies first with them; we will have sufficient forces in theatre to support them should the need arise, but it has not, and that is part of the judgment governing the decision to hand over control in the first place.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Andrew Robathan: What proportion of his working time he spent on his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Defence in the last month.

Des Browne: I am always conscious of my responsibilities as Secretary of State for Defence and I am constantly ready to exercise them. It is not possible accurately to determine what proportion of my time is spent on defence issues or Scotland Office issues, however.

Andrew Robathan: I know that the Secretary of State is an extremely conscientious and thoroughly decent man, but last Wednesday he was answering questions from me and others on Scottish affairs, and back in the summer I recall an occasion when one of his deputies had to make a statement on defence because he was still up in Scotland. Does he understand why people on duty 24 hours a day in Afghanistan, facing the most difficult fighting since Korea, or those risking their lives in Iraq, question the commitment of this Government, and does he understand why they say that it is inappropriate and insulting that his job should be a part-time one?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks at the outset of his question. Factually, his account of events was, to a degree, inaccurate. There has been no occasion when I have not been able to answer a question or make a statement at the Dispatch Box while I have been both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is thinking of something that happened about 18 months ago, when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), had to make a statement because I could not get back from my constituency. That was before I had both sets of responsibilities. What he said is accurate in fact, but not in time.

Andrew Robathan: You were in Scotland.

Des Browne: I note what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, but my constituency is in Scotland—I cannot help that. I cannot move it.
	I simply do not accept that the morale of our deployed personnel is lowered by my working patterns. I say that advisedly because I regularly visit members of our armed forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have many issues on their mind, which they are not shy about raising with me, ranging from issues involving their families, their colleagues and the task in hand to their equipment, but they have never, once, raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman asked about. I remind him that, the other day, thanks to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), I spent some considerable time with members of the 12 Mech Brigade who had returned from Afghanistan. I spoke to quite a number of them and not one of them raised that issue.

Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he need take no notice whatsoever of the pathetic jibes from the military wing of the Tory party? Talking of which, was he as surprised as I was at the antics of the former top brass from their comfortable billets in another place considering that only three days earlier, General Sir Richard Dannatt and Colonel Richard Westley came to the House and, in front of a briefing attended by some 50 Members of this House and the other place, acknowledged the significant new investment in equipment and facilities for our armed forces?

Des Browne: My position, which is supported by those who have seen the operational theatre, by those who are deployed there and by their equipment, is that our forces have never been better equipped. I accept that the challenge is now to maintain that level of equipment for our troops when we deploy them in the future. It is unfortunate, at best, that people constantly refer to our troops' not being properly equipped to do the job when that is not the case. It is also potentially dangerous because the enemy listens to every single thing that is said in this House or reported in our media. Our troops' force protection is, in my view, undermined by people who misdescribe the level of protection that they have.

Derek Conway: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, while juggling the time between his responsibilities in Scotland and at the Ministry, he has found time to visit Headley Court to see the work that is being done there for wounded soldiers? Will he pay tribute to  The Sunday Times's fundraising campaign to make the facilities there more appropriate to recuperation and to the estimable Jeremy Clarkson, who is leading the campaign? Is it not rather sad that a charitable campaign is doing that rather than a grateful nation?

Des Browne: I have visited Headley Court. It is appropriate that such visits are done privately and not publicised. I have no intention in the future of publicising any such visits. I know that hon. Members from all parties visit our troops in hospital and in rehabilitation centres. They do so quietly; that is entirely appropriate, and I am pleased that they are prepared to do that. I have seen the miracle of rehabilitation—it is nothing short of that—that takes place at Headley Court. Some of the prosthetic limbs that I have seen people working on are miraculous. They are wonders of modern science, and give people a degree of freedom of movement that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. I welcome the public support for Headley Court, but there is no lack of Government support for the facility and we only recently paid for a significant new annexe. The Government support Headley Court just as much as anyone else.

Tom Levitt: At a time when many Members have perfectly legitimate but very well-paid jobs outside the House and earn tens of thousands of pounds while presumably being part-time Members of the House, should we not be thanking the Secretary of State for doing two jobs for the price of one?

Des Browne: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. I will merely say what I have said every time that I have been questioned about the subject: if people have an issue of substance to raise about the way in which I carry out my job as Secretary of State for Defence, they ought to raise that issue rather than the issue of perceived principle, wrongly calling in aid support from troops on the front line. I do not believe that that support for the argument exists, and I have certainly seen no evidence of it. Although I accept what the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said from a sedentary position earlier, I have no doubt that that sort of discontent might now be stamped out.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State will have spent much time preparing for the imminent publication of the board of inquiry into the Nimrod tragedy in Afghanistan. Will he assure the House that all lessons learned from that board of inquiry will be implemented as a matter of priority across the ageing Nimrod fleet?

Des Browne: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I intend to make a full statement to the House and he will have an opportunity then to ask me questions—in an informed way, I trust—about the recommendations? It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the families for me to discuss anything that comes out of the board of inquiry before they have an opportunity to consider its report's findings.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State evidently did not read the comments of five former chiefs of the defence staff if he genuinely thinks that it is not believed that his having two jobs sends out a terrible signal to members of the armed forces. He will recall that, earlier this month, I asked whether his ministerial salary was paid to him entirely for his duties as Secretary of State for Defence, and he failed to give me a direct reply. However, the Library has spoken to the Cabinet Office and a note to me states that a second official at the Cabinet Office informed the Library that
	"following the recent cabinet reshuffle, the Ministry of Defence was instructed to pay Des Browne a ministerial salary and the Scotland Office was instructed not to."
	There may not be enough money in the defence budget for helicopters, but there is enough for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about time spent.

Des Browne: I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to answer in relation to the original question, which was about the time that I spend on my respective duties. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have asked all his colleagues, to judge me by my actions rather than the criticisms that he can manufacture. Our record in the Ministry in the past six months, when I have held both responsibilities, is, in my view, impressive. We have improved the operational welfare package, with council tax relief and free post; offered financial and practical support to assist inquests and improved compensation for those with multiple injuries; sustained outstanding operational medical capability; improved commitments and funding for accommodation, especially single-living accommodation; settled the comprehensive spending review, meaning an additional £7.7 billion for defence spending in the next three years, and—a matter that is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart— ordered two new aircraft carriers, which are the largest vessels ever to be commissioned for the Royal Navy.

Sustainable Procurement

David Kidney: What account his Department takes of the Government's code for sustainable procurement in contracting for procuring food and drink for the armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: The Ministry of Defence is committed to developing sustainable procurement for food and drink, and we are working with our contractors to identify opportunities. However, we need to ensure that value for money and transparency are maintained in our contracting.

David Kidney: At a time when British livestock farmers are recovering from a foot and mouth disease outbreak, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ministry buying British meat is not only sustainable but good sense? Will he refuse to listen to Ministry buyers who say that price is the obstacle? When the Ministry has worked with the Red Meat Industry Forum to change out-of-date specifications from the Ministry, everybody benefits—from the Ministry to the individual farmer who supplies.

Bob Ainsworth: I am more than happy to listen to the points that my hon. Friend or the industry wish to make. Some progress has been made, but price is a barrier in some cases. More than half the beef that we procure is from British sources. That applies to all the pork and all the turkeys, but to only 13 per cent. of the lamb because there are problems with both the product that is provided and its price. If there are ways in which we can work around that, we will examine them and try to move in that direction.

John Smith: Given the sheer scale of the new project to build a military training academy in St. Athan in my constituency, will the code of the practice be part of the main-gate contract to be signed next year? Will sustainable procurement apply to food and drink at the new tri-service academy?

Bob Ainsworth: We will try to implement the code in every aspect of our procurement policy, including applying it to the new facilities at St. Athan, as my hon. Friend requests.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that the NAAFI in Cyprus is now being operated by the French? The first thing that they will do to try to make savings is stop British products being sold in the NAAFI shop. Does he agree that that is unacceptable for our troops?

Bob Ainsworth: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am not aware of that specific instance. I shall look into it afterwards and talk to him further.

Joint Pay Award Allowances

Desmond Swayne: What recent assessment he has made of the operation of the joint pay award allowances system; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The introduction of the joint personnel administration system has been a significant achievement. It is one of the most complex business change projects in the private or public sector ever introduced. There are no known systemic problems with JPA affecting the payment of allowances to armed forces personnel. Although errors have occurred, much has been achieved to ensure the quality of the service being provided to address problems, including additional training and guidance.

Desmond Swayne: My interest is in the register.
	The Minister says that there are no systemic problems, but let me tell him of one. The system is not paying Army cadet force personnel or Territorial Army officers on the unposted list. I spoke to an officer a weekend ago who told me that he had arrears of £5,000. He was articulate and was able to persuade someone to pay him out of an imprest account, but there are hundreds of much less articulate personnel out there who are not being paid. Will the Minister do something about that?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course errors have occurred and would occur in any payroll of that size and complexity, in terms of allowances and the number of people who have to be paid. I am aware that the issue that he has raised has been looked into and I understand that a solution has been found on which work is progressing.

Departmental Policy

Jim Sheridan: What steps his Department is taking to work with other Government Departments to ensure that the needs of armed forces personnel and their families are taken into account in the formation and implementation of policy; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: The Government recently announced work to develop the first ever cross-Government strategy for supporting our armed forces personnel, their families and veterans. The Command Paper will outline future initiatives and report on those steps that have already been taken in areas such as medical care, welfare and accommodation.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the best interests of members of our armed forces at every rank and their families would be served not by a trade union, but by an armed forces federation similar to those in other countries? That would be better than the current system of having to wait until the generals retire and find a safe place in the other place.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not sure whether retired generals would be elected in such a federation. Establishing such a body would change the ethos of our armed forces, so we should not go in that direction without considerable thought. The issue of receiving complaints from our armed forces is very important, and my hon. Friend will be aware of our recent appointment of a service complaints commissioner, a post designed to improve exactly that area of work and ensure that all the complaints that our service personnel raise are dealt with appropriately and thoroughly.

Patrick Mercer: Can the Minister confirm that service wives and families will be talked to when the gap between operational tours is fixed? There is not enough time for men and women to return to their spouses, because there are not enough troops and because disastrous decisions have been made about recruiting and the disbandment of three battalions. Unless the Minister gets the issue right, force levels will drop even further and service families' morale will be further dented.

Bob Ainsworth: I am talking to service families, as the hon. Gentleman does. I know that people are pushed. Their lives can be made difficult in those circumstances, but harmony guidelines are being adhered to in the majority of cases. The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for three further battalions, but he needs to talk not only to the Government, but to those on his own Front Bench, because I understand that although they support that proposal, they do so at no additional cost to the MOD, which would therefore result in cuts elsewhere. The Opposition cannot go on about the Navy, the Air Force and the Army without saying whether they would be prepared to spend additional money on defence. The silence from the Conservative Benches on that issue is deafening.

Eric Joyce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that advice from the former chiefs of defence staff would be of greater value if it were not couched in personalised and politicised terms, as it was a week or two ago? Does he think that the recent efforts of General Guthrie, the new Tory party adviser, have helped or hindered the efforts of the current chiefs of staff?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a point. We welcome any contribution to the debate about the future funding and development of our armed forces. However, we would not want it to be couched in personal or political terms, because that would only detract from the weight of the points made.

Willie Rennie: I welcome the Minister's remarks about the cross-departmental strategy, as no matter where in the UK armed forces personnel and their families or veterans are based, it is vital to ensure that they receive the same quality of service. Will the Minister ensure that that quality of service is assured in Scotland and Wales as well? When we took evidence from the Scottish Parliament last month on this very issue of health services, we were appalled by the quality of service provided in Scotland.

Bob Ainsworth: During the process of drawing up the Command Paper, we need to consult veterans' organisations, family associations, local government and devolved Administrations as well as the whole of Government in order to get it right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made a similar point last month in the Chamber and it applies equally to Scotland as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister realise that the most devout hope of the families of any serviceman on operations is that he or she should have the right equipment to undertake their jobs? Although much of the personal equipment is very good on operations, what steps are the Government and all their Departments taking to ensure that more helicopters are got to our forces on operations as soon as possible?

Bob Ainsworth: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we have six new Merlins coming into service and that the first will arrive in spring next year. We are also converting eight Chinooks. Together, those will considerably increase our helicopter capability. We have also done some modifications on Sea Kings to enable them to be capable in the Afghan theatre and they will provide us with greater flexibility. Yes, we understand the need for helicopter capability and we are taking steps to improve it.

Armed Forces

Chris Bryant: How many members of the (a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force are Welsh.

Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence records the number of UK nationals in the armed forces. Specifying national identity within the UK is not mandated, so it is not possible to provide accurate figures for the total number who are Welsh.

Chris Bryant: May I suggest that, notwithstanding the Ministry's not knowing the figures, we are pretty sure in Wales that we produce a higher proportion of members of the armed forces than any other of the constituent parts of the UK? Is it not clear that Wales has a strong and proud military tradition? If we are to continue it, do we not need to ensure that when Welsh regiments return from operations tours—as have members of the 1st and 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh—a proper welcome is given to them in Wales? Should we not pay tribute to their work and, in this particular case, pay tribute to those who died in Iraq, including Private Craig Barber, Lance Corporal Ryan Francis and Corporal Paul Joszko?

Derek Twigg: Let me say to my hon. Friend that we are very proud of the work that the UK armed forces do and that the Welsh play a very important part in that. I pay tribute to their contribution to the armed forces and to their magnificent and outstanding achievements in Iraq and Afghanistan. My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the 1st and 2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh, and there are also the Welsh Guards, who returned from Bosnia. It is very important to recognise what our armed forces do throughout the UK and that they are given a proper welcome home. We have seen examples of that recently and I am delighted to support them.

Adam Price: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). When my father served in the British Army, he often acted as an unofficial interpreter for those of his compatriots who did not have fluency in English. Given the number of Welsh speakers who join the armed forces every year, will the Minister consider allowing those who wish it the facility to receive at least some of their basic training through the medium of Welsh?

Derek Twigg: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not the way we do the training. Of course, I will look further into issues surrounding the Welsh language and decide whether there is anything more we can do to help.

Veterans' Badges

David Crausby: How many veterans' badges have been issued in the last 12 months.

Derek Twigg: Between 1 November 2006 and 31 October 2007, 196,197 veterans' badges have been issued.

David Crausby: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that veterans' badges have been a tremendous success, but they are only one part of the covenant that exists between the Government, the British people and members of the armed forces. What further action does he intend to take in recognising the unique nature of military service?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the recognition of veterans. More than half a million veterans' badges have now been presented, but the awarding of badges is just one of a number of things that we are doing to support veterans. Veterans day itself is an important aspect of what we are doing, and I am sure that next year even more Members will support it than did so this year. We now have a Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, and the Government have appointed a veterans Minister.
	Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made an announcement about priority treatment and I announced new mental health pilots for veterans. The Ministry of Defence will work with the national health service to provide even better support for veterans' mental health.

Mark Harper: The Minister has sensibly led me to my question. Veterans who receive their badges will be interested by Ministers' announcement of the expansion of NHS priority treatment to all veterans whose injuries or ill health are suspected of being due to service. A veteran hearing that announcement could have been forgiven for thinking that it represented a policy change, but, as the Minister knows, he said exactly the same in a letter to me earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should simply ask the Minister whether it represents a policy change.

Derek Twigg: In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made it clear that he was reiterating the policy on veterans and the priority given to their health. Hull primary care trust has also made veterans' treatment a priority when their GPs consider that they may have a condition resulting from their service. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, because it is important for us to convey the message about veterans' priority treatment, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend was able to make that announcement.

Army Recruitment

Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to increase recruitment into the Army.

Derek Twigg: The Army as a whole uses a range of methods to attract individuals to a career in the Army. They include the use of targeted advertising campaigns, the latest of which is aimed at potential infantry soldiers among others. A further education bursary scheme is being piloted in recognition of the fact that more youngsters are staying in further education. A dedicated careers website was relaunched earlier this year featuring an online recruiting office where individuals can chat to a recruiter. There are also 39 armed forces careers offices and 84 army careers information offices in towns and cities across the United Kingdom.

Gordon Prentice: I thank my friend for all that information, but am I right in thinking that 7.5 per cent. of the British Army is drawn from Commonwealth countries? Is that number too high, and should a cap be placed on it to reduce our dependence on our friends in the Commonwealth?

Derek Twigg: We have always recruited from Commonwealth countries, and we think that the balance is about right. It is important that we continue to recruit from the Commonwealth, and we welcome and value the contribution of our armed forces personnel from those countries.

Andrew Murrison: Although he did not mention them, I am sure the Minister will agree that student presentation teams do a very good job in boosting recruitment. Indeed, on 7 February he said:
	"These presentations are extremely well received",
	adding that they offered
	"significant benefits for future recruiting."—[ Official Report, 7 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 922W.]
	Why, then, at a time when our armed forces are so grossly under-recruited, is the Minister scrapping those formidable recruiting sergeants? Is it to save the blushes of the Secretary of State for Defence in his other part-time job, given left-wing opposition to the teams' entering Scottish and Welsh schools?

Derek Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. As his hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) will know, the purpose of the presentation teams was not to recruit but to get the defence message across in schools. However, he is right in saying that they did a very good and important job.
	We wanted to discover how we could deal with communications better with the resources that we had. That is why we introduced Defence Dynamics, a web-based system. The hon. Gentleman may wish to have a look at it. Only a week ago I visited a school where it has been launched, and found that it was very popular and being used to good effect in lessons. It plays an important role in conveying defence issues to young people in the classroom.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. Friend will know that the Army is putting together a people programme, which will look at the facilities offered to our service personnel when they are not on operations. He knows that peer-group pressure is one method we can use—when people return home, they can explain to their friends what a great life it is being in the forces. Will he, however, look into our traditional recruiting areas and whether they were damaged by the mergers of the battalions and regiments, and will he present a review of that to the House?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend will see that recruitment to the Army has increased: there was a 25 per cent. rise in the last financial year, and we continue to work hard to ensure that that is the case. He is right in one respect, however: the best ambassadors are our armed forces personnel themselves when they go back to their communities; another is people seeing the outstanding job being doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the important role the forces continue to play elsewhere in the world and in the UK. It is also important that we link in our veterans, as they are great ambassadors for the armed forces, too. I believe that we continue to do well in terms of recruitment in what is currently a very buoyant economy where there are many different opportunities for young people.

Topical Questions

Katy Clark: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Des Browne: As Secretary of State for Defence, my departmental responsibilities are to make and execute defence policy, to provide the armed forces with the capabilities they need to achieve success in the military tasks in which they are engaged at home and abroad, and to ensure that they are ready to respond to the tasks that might arise in the future. I have today made written ministerial statements on the signing of a contract for the purchase of a sixth C-17 Globemaster aircraft to be delivered in 2008, and on the letting of a contract for the future provision of marine services to the Royal Navy.

Katy Clark: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the representations that have been made in relation to MOD Beith in my constituency and the continuation of an apprenticeship scheme there. Will he hear further representations on the business case for such an apprenticeship scheme, and will he meet the relevant trade unions?

Des Browne: I commend my hon. Friend for her support for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency in Beith. I have a personal interest in this matter as my older brother served his apprenticeship there many years ago when it was another institution. I recently wrote to my hon. Friend about the decision taken in 2004 to close the apprenticeship training scheme at Beith. I know that that disappointed her, but the decision was based on the analysis of the business requirement over the next 10 years. There is a declining market for the complex weapons that are processed at Beith, and there was not a sustainable opportunity for apprenticeships in the context of such a business case. However, my hon. Friend is, of course, entitled to make representations on behalf of her constituents and businesses in her constituency, including this one, and I will be happy to meet her at an early opportunity, when we can also discuss whether I need to meet others who wish to make representations.

Ashok Kumar: Given that our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made an immense effort to build relations between the UK and India, what is the Ministry of Defence doing to strengthen relations between ourselves and India on defence issues?

Derek Twigg: We see India as an increasingly important strategic partner across a wide range of issues. India is increasingly engaged globally, including as a supplier of troops to the United Nations. We expect the current high level of defence engagement to continue. We see India as an important strategic partner and we continue to engage with it very strongly on defence.

Liam Fox: The Chief of the General Staff says that the Army has
	"almost no capability to react to the unexpected",
	and the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff says that
	"the current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary".
	Which of those statements should the country be more worried about?

Des Browne: The Army is stretched—I have accepted that. I have been saying for some time that if we continue to ask it to operate at this tempo in the long term, that will be unsustainable. Over that period, we have been reducing the pressure on the Army. It is recognised that with the conclusion of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland and of the operation in Bosnia, and the planned reduction in the number of troops in Iraq, a significant amount of that pressure will be reduced.
	The hon. Gentleman's speech to the Conservative party conference suggested that the Army needed three further battalions. I do not believe that the Army needs that or that it thinks that it needs that. I accept that we need a balanced force structure in the Army, but that debate will not be helped by people seeking soundbites, particularly the sort that do not bring with them the commitment to invest the £700 million that would be necessary to make them reality.
	On the Navy, the process of reducing the fleet was started by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported at the end of the cold war, and has continued in line with the White Paper of 2004 in respect of numbers. The most important thing about our Navy is that with fewer ships it can deliver precisely the same tactical effect as before. I recognise that that does not mean that it can deliver the same strategic effect—that is a function of numbers rather than one of capability—but the ships that the Navy has have significantly greater capability.

Liam Fox: But it is not just about manning where there is a gap. There are real gaps at the moment—we have a real shortage of battlefield helicopters, as I saw in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago. That came as a direct result of this Government's decision to cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004. We may be getting more helicopters now, but people in the field are asking what sort of idiots cut the helicopter budget in the middle of two wars. We have ended up with not enough helicopters, soldiers or ships, we are not even paying all our troops and the Prime Minister gives us a part-time Defence Secretary to boot. Do Ministers understand that it is not only former defence chiefs who are angry about this, but increasing numbers inside and outside the armed forces?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows two things about helicopters from his trip to Afghanistan. The first is that operational helicopter hours in Afghanistan have increased significantly over the past months and that there are plans to increase the number of helicopters quite significantly. He also knows that that investment has been made and that one cannot just buy helicopters off the shelf—one must get them from the production line and make them deployable, and that takes some time.

Quentin Davies: Has my right hon. Friend seen the opinion poll conducted in Afghanistan, commissioned by the BBC and published today, which shows massive public support for the NATO military presence in Afghanistan and only 4 per cent. of respondents supporting the Taliban? Is that not an encouraging vindication of the great efforts and sacrifice of our troops on the ground, whose courage and professionalism we all so much admire in this House?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right about what we have achieved in Afghanistan. Those who had the pleasure of speaking to the representatives of 12 Mech Brigade when they were in this House last Thursday would know why. Those troops and others who have been on the ground in Afghanistan know fine well what they have been achieving over the past six months, building on the work of the taskforce that was there before them. Those who say that we face strategic defeat in Afghanistan do not understand what our troops have achieved there. Every time we have faced the Taliban, we have defeated them. That is why 60 to 70 per cent. of the people of Afghanistan support the presence of the international security assistance force troops.

Desmond Swayne: On 19 November, the Secretary of State skilfully avoided the question of whether Lord Drayson "approved in advance" the closure of the Defence Export Services Organisation. The reply given was:
	"The decision...was taken by the Prime Minister. The Defence Secretary was consulted."—[ Official Report, 19 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 475W.]
	Will the Secretary of State give a one-word answer to the question whether Lord Drayson knew?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows fine well that the structure of Government is a matter for the Prime Minister. It has been so for every Government who have ever governed this country, and it will continue to be so.

Andrew Selous: A written answer earlier this year showed that the Government have spent more than £2.3 billion on external consultants. Does the Secretary of State think that that was good value for money and could it not have been better spent on, for example, our ageing helicopter fleet?

Des Browne: Significant money has been spent on our helicopter fleet, as we have already discussed. The value of consultants is in whether they genuinely add value to a process and bring skills into government that government does not have. One cannot answer that question in the general sense without examining every contract involved. I am certain that every contract was let on the basis that the consultants coming in would add value.

Andrew Miller: Last Thursday and Friday, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I had the privilege of attending the defence ethics seminar at Shrivenham. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that seminar is given the support it needs to continue in the future? It is a valuable asset for our services. In addition, will he ensure that other Members of Parliament also enjoy the privilege of attending?

Des Browne: Yes.

Richard Benyon: There is real concern among some troops training to go on operations that they do not have access to some of the equipment that they will use on those operations. Will the Secretary of State assure members of 16 Air Assault Brigade, for example, that they will have full access to some of the excellent equipment that is being made available, especially night-vision goggles for drivers, which is of great concern to all ranks?

Des Browne: So far as it is possible to do so, yes. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an issue that is raised tangentially, if not directly, in the Select Committee report that was published this morning. The success of urgent operational requirements—UORs—has generated another challenge. Our ability to get good equipment into theatre generates another challenge of providing enough of it to enable people to train with it in anticipation of deployment. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that we meet that demand.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will be aware of errors that have occurred in the salaries of members of the armed forces. Will he undertake to review the joint personnel administration system, and perhaps to introduce a 24-hour hotline for members of armed forces to query such errors?

Derek Twigg: This is one of the biggest systems ever introduced, as I said earlier. If we consider where we were last year, with the problems that we had with the RAF, compared with where we are today, following the introduction of the system to the Army, we can see that we have taken a tremendous step forward. Improving the training, guidance and instructions has been an important aspect of improving the overall efficiency of the system. We are always seeking to improve access for service personnel who have queries about their pay and allowances, including those on operations, and we continue to make improvements.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In my constituency, which is the home of the Royal Navy, we greatly welcomed the announcement of the order for two new aircraft carriers. Can my hon. Friend give me any indication of the progress of the joint venture that will help to deliver them?

Bob Ainsworth: Progress on the joint venture is going well and there is no truth in any of the stories in the press about problems in that regard. The two aircraft carriers will be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents, as they will be by the Royal Navy and the nation as a whole.

Paul Rowen: Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with his NATO counterparts about additional combat troops for Afghanistan if, as seems likely, Canada pulls its troops out next year?

Des Browne: The answer is yes, I have such conversations regularly. I do not accept that it is likely that Canada will pull its troops out. It is of course for the Canadian Government and Parliament to make a decision, but by no stretch of the imagination is the situation as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Adam Holloway: Why does the Secretary of State think Lord Guthrie described the Government's attitude to the armed forces as "mystifying"?

Des Browne: I am happy to speak for myself, but I am not content to stand at the Dispatch Box and speak for Lord Guthrie. Just as I ask people to judge me by my actions, so people should perhaps judge Lord Guthrie by his actions and then they can come to their own conclusions about why he did what he did.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of Field Marshal Lord Inge who in a debate in the other place on 22 November cautioned the people who were arguing for the immediate need to resuscitate the three battalions? Is not the onus on individuals who argue for the three battalions, including the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), to say where they will find the money to pay for them?

Des Browne: I welcome debate about our armed forces—about their size, their deployment and our support for them. However, I am mystified about the three battalions, which appear to have support from Conservative Front-Bench Members. They will cost £700 million if they are added to the Army, yet Tory Front Benchers want to be able to tell the country that they do not intend to spend any additional money on the armed forces. That does not make sense to me, but perhaps they will explain it to the country at some stage.

Robert Key: I thank Defence Ministers for working with their colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to provide more financial resources for Her Majesty's coroner for Wiltshire, which has been of great comfort to the bereaved. What progress is the Secretary of State making with the Scottish Executive on a seamless approach to the problem of the repatriation of the bodies of those who have fallen? What progress can we expect to see in the near future?

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of what has been achieved between our Department and, principally, the Ministry of Justice in challenging and difficult circumstances. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the support and co-operation we have all received from all coroners, whether in Wiltshire, Oxford or elsewhere in the country, in dealing with those issues. There is a challenge for the Scottish jurisdiction, because it does not enjoy the power to hold inquiries into deaths that take place abroad. Discussions have been ongoing for some time and they will continue. There is willingness on the part of Scottish Ministers to try to resolve the issue, against the challenges it might generate for their jurisdiction more broadly, which I understand. There is willingness to resolve the issue, but it should not be resolved to the detriment of the families, so we have to be careful how we do it.

Points of Order

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 7 June, I raised in the House concerns about the conduct of the chief executive of Warrington borough council. An e-mail from the council has been disclosed to me making it clear that officers considered an action against me for defamation following those remarks. It was accompanied by a letter from the borough solicitor reserving the right to take legal action in the future. As the guardian of the privileges of the House, what advice can you offer anyone in local government who seeks to challenge those privileges? As the contemplation of legal action appears to arise from a question I put to the Leader of the House, can you confirm that remarks made in the House are privileged and that no legal action can be founded on them?

Mr. Speaker: As a Member of Parliament in my own right, it is usually the case—at least it is in Glasgow—that I take advice from local government officers. I do not give them advice; it is the other way around. I can confirm to the hon. Lady that words spoken in the House are protected by parliamentary privilege; outside the House the same protection does not apply.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you yet received a request from the Prime Minister for permission to come to the House to make a statement to clarify his on-the-record assertion that the Leader of the House of Commons first knew about illegal donations to the Labour party on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Blackman-Woods.

Roger Gale: Shall I take that as a no?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can draw no conclusions whatsoever.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on the convention of the House that Members should at least inform the local MP if they seek to raise an issue concerning that MP's constituency? All Members—none more so than myself—want to ensure that matters relating to the Durham Green development in my constituency are properly investigated. Had the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) informed me of his intentions, I could have told him that it was a Liberal Democrat council that gave planning permission and that the lifting of article 14s in the region was the subject of a campaign organised by  The Journal, and backed by the chamber of commerce and all political parties in the region, to support job growth in the area.

Mr. Speaker: It looks as though the hon. Lady can handle the affairs of her constituency very well, and I will not be drawn into that matter either.

Andrew Rosindell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tabled a closed question under Defence questions, and I would like your advice about the transfer of questions from one Department to another. The relevant question was to do with defence, but for some reason it was passed to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Can Departments pass questions to each other in order to invalidate or ignore them, and how can such loss of a question be compensated for?

Mr. Speaker: I do not always know the reasoning behind the decisions, but Departments and Ministers can move questions from one Department to another. It has happened to us all as Back Benchers and we have to live with it.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a serious issue at stake. The Defence Export Services Organisation was charged with responsibility for facilitating defence exports from the United Kingdom. If we cannot question Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about the issue, the defence industry of the United Kingdom should be told that that is not on. This is a serious matter for the UK defence industry.

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to allow a debate on the issue to be opened up. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a considerable time and knows that this has happened to every Back Bencher, including me when I was Back Bencher. That does not mean that a future question cannot be posed to any Department. If you go into the Table Office, you can submit whatever questions you wish, to whichever Department.

Orders of the Day

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

[Relevant documents:  The letter from the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions dated 12th July and the Secretary of  State's letter of reply dated 10th August. ]
	 As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Registered Maintenance Agreements: Scotland

'(1) In section 4(10) of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) (exclusion of application for maintenance calculation), after paragraph (aa) insert—
	"(ab) a maintenance agreement—
	(i) made on or after the date prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); and
	(ii) registered for execution in the Books of Council and Session or the sheriff court books,
	is in force in respect of them, but has been so for less than the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made; or".
	(2) In section 7(10) of that Act (exclusion of application by child in Scotland for maintenance calculation), at the end of paragraph (b) insert "; or
	(c) a maintenance agreement—
	(i) made on or after the date prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); and
	(ii) registered for execution in the Books of Council and Session or the sheriff court books,
	is in force in respect of them, but has been so for less than the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made."
	(3) In section 9(3) of that Act (agreements about maintenance), after "4(10)(a)" insert "and (ab)".'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Plaskitt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5— Responsibilities of non-resident parent—
	'In section 1 of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) (the duty to maintain), for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) For the purposes of this Act, a non-resident parent shall be taken to have met his responsibility to maintain any qualifying child of his—
	(a) by paying a calculation in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or
	(b) by making payments in accordance with an order set out in subsection (2A) in the circumstances set out in subsection (2B).
	(2A) The order referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall be an order ("the Order") for periodical payments to the child made under section 23(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18) or paragraph 1(2)(a) or (b) of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41).
	(2B) The circumstances referred to in paragraph 2(b) are—
	(a) that simultaneously with the Order the court makes an order under—
	(i) section 23(1)(a),(b),(c), or section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or
	(ii) paragraph 1(2)(c),(d) or (e) of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (lump sum payments or transfer of property orders etc); or
	(b) the order is a variation of an order originally made when one or more such orders were made.
	(2C) Where the court makes an order of the type listed at subsection (2A) and the conditions of subsection (2B) are met, any calculation under this Act shall be discharged and, during the currency of the Order, the Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers to make a calculation under section 4 of this Act."'.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 15, page 7, line 26, at end add—
	'(2) In section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991 (child support maintenance) for subsection (10) substitute—
	"In the event that the parent with care and the non-resident parent have entered into a binding Minute of Agreement and—
	(a) each party has received independent legal advice prior to signing the said Minute of Agreement;
	(b) the agreement contains within it provisions for the maintenance of any children whether by regular payments, transfers of capital or a combination of the two;
	(c) there is provision to reconsider any regular payments in the event of a material change of circumstances; and
	(d) there is provision within the agreement for enforcement in the event that either party fails to adhere to the provisions of the agreement,
	no application may be made to the commission with respect to a qualifying child or qualifying children specified in the agreement."'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 26, at end add—
	'(2) In section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991 (child support maintenance), for subsection (10) substitute—
	"No application may be made at any time under this section with respect to a qualifying child or any qualifying children if there is in force a maintenance order in respect of that child or those children and the person who is, at that time, the non-resident parent."'.
	Government amendment No. 5

James Plaskitt: I wish to discuss these amendments and new clauses in two groups. I shall begin with new clause 2 and Government amendment No. 5, as I believe that setting out their purpose will shed light on why we are unable to accept the proposal by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
	New clause 2 clarifies how the provisions of sections 4(10) and 7(10) of the Child Support Act 1991 work in relation to registered minutes of agreement made on or after 3 March 2003. It gives registered minutes of agreement for periodical child maintenance the same status as court orders for the purposes of those sections. It ensures that those registered agreements, like court orders, have a 12-month period to bed in and work before any application may be made to the statutory scheme.
	For all practical purposes, that is what sections 4(10) and 7(10) of the 1991 Act currently provide. However, their interpretation in relation to registered minutes of agreement relies on the decision of a child support commissioner, which may be challenged and overturned by a higher court. If that happened, it would mean that making and registering a minute of agreement would not prevent either party from immediately applying to the commission for maintenance calculation.
	The Government believe that registered minutes of agreement, like court orders made on or after 3 March 2003, should be allowed a settling period of 12 months in which to bed in and work. However, if it becomes clear that, for whatever reason, those agreements are not working, parents should have access to the statutory maintenance scheme to put things right. New clause 2 clarifies the position in primary legislation and puts the matter beyond doubt.
	In short, we believe that it is right to make it clear that for the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the 1991 Act, registered minutes of agreement have the same status and effect as court orders and are subject to the same treatment. In order for that to happen as soon as possible, Government amendment No. 5 will commence new clause 2 on the day after the Act is passed.

Michael Weir: Surely the proposal does not change the position that minutes of agreement are guaranteed for only one year. After that, either party may apply to the commission, irrespective of the provisions in a minute of agreement, for enforcement in the same way as a court action. If that happens, we are back to square one, with an application to the commission, rather than immediate enforcement.

James Plaskitt: These measures give the agreements the same status as court orders. They do not address the more substantive issue of the 12-month rule that the hon. Gentleman wants to debate. We will come to that.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 1 and 13 and new clause 5, which would all, by differing means, prevent parents who had entered into certain minutes of agreement or court orders from ever making an application to the commission for a maintenance calculation. Under the measures, parents who decided not to use the statutory service initially for their maintenance arrangements would be locked into registered minutes of agreement or court orders for ever.
	The Government recognise the value of minutes of agreement and court orders, which have a positive role to play in giving parents an opportunity to agree maintenance arrangements that suit their particular circumstances and providing for regular ongoing payments of maintenance to children. However, we feel that they should be given a 12-month period in which to bed in and work, with either parent having the opportunity to come to the commission after that time if they do not work.
	Of course, if both parties agree that the arrangements are not working and on how they need to be changed, the parties will have the option of returning to the court for a variation. However, those provisos will not apply in most cases.

Michael Weir: The 12-month rule is still the problem, however. The Minister is saying that if, after 12 months and one day, one party decided to go to the commission, they could do so, irrespective of whether there had been any change in circumstances from 12 months and one day prior to that. The whole concept of minutes of agreement lasting more than 12 months is undermined, because neither party has a guarantee that the other party will not unilaterally take the matter to the commission.

James Plaskitt: We think that the right has to be in place, because if the terms of the agreement arrived at in court are not working, there needs to be a means—

Michael Weir: It does not matter.

James Plaskitt: It does, because the arrangements will break down in some circumstances. If things break down, we would all agree that there needs to be a way of overcoming that breakdown, because that is in the interests of children. As I said, if both parties agree that the arrangements are not working, and on how that should be resolved, they can go back to the court to seek a variation. However, what would happen if the breakdown between the two was irreconcilable? We cannot leave children in a situation in which there is no flow of maintenance. There needs to be a way of one of the parents—generally the parent with care—to seek a means of securing maintenance. That will be achieved by allowing them access to the commission.

Michael Weir: I still do not follow what the Minister is saying. When I said, "It does not matter," I was making the point that both parents do not have to agree that things have broken down. One parent could decide unilaterally that they no longer like the terms of the agreement, whether or not those terms had been adhered to fully, and then go to the commission. The other parent would have no option. In such circumstances, no one will enter into minutes of agreement lasting more than a year because they could be overturned by the other party in a year and one day. It would not matter whether the terms of the agreement had been fully adhered to, the agreement was working or the payments were being made, or whether there had been capital payments, because a parent could still go to the commission.

James Plaskitt: I do not agree that there is a disincentive. Some 20,000 such orders or minutes of agreement are made every year, and there is no indication that the existence of the provision in any way undermines them. They remain a choice; if parents want, they can exercise that choice, and they can settle their separation and child support issues by those means. The vast majority do not opt for that process, but go through the Child Support Agency or reach a voluntary agreement. For those who do take the order route, there has to be a way of resolving things if the agreement breaks down.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister not accept that Sir David Henshaw argued against the 12-month rule in his review of the system? He said:
	"The ability to move between systems after a year can in itself create instability and reduce the incentive to make an initial agreement."
	Those are his words, on page 27 of his review.

James Plaskitt: I know that they are Sir David's words, and as he would expect, we debated that recommendation thoroughly and considered it carefully, but in light of all the evidence that we looked at, we did not agree with his recommendation.

John Penrose: rose—

James Plaskitt: I will give way on that point once more, and then I want to make some progress.

John Penrose: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that it is possible that a court can be more thorough in its initial investigation, particularly of the financial circumstances surrounding the break-up of a relationship? As a result, the court order—a minute of agreement in Scotland—that is created may result in a fairer and better division of assets, or provision of maintenance. Providing whoever feels hard done by with the opportunity to undo that arrangement may result in a less just conclusion.

James Plaskitt: The order may be more thorough, and that is why some parents who separate choose to go down that route. They may feel that the court order is more relevant to their circumstances than any of the other means. However, I do not accept that the existence of the other means undermines court orders or minutes of agreement. So far, we cannot see any evidence that they have that effect. I should like now to make a little more progress; there will be an opportunity to come back to those issues in respect of the other amendments in the group.
	The amendments proposed by Opposition Members would prevent choice; they would remove the bedding-in period and could leave parents irrevocably locked into arrangements that may no longer work further down the line or meet the needs of the children concerned. Minutes of agreement and court orders have their proper place in the provision of child maintenance, but there needs to be a safety net for when those arrangements go wrong. Children must not be left for considerable periods with no maintenance or inadequate arrangements, and parents should not be tied to agreements that no longer work for them or, more importantly, their children.
	By encouraging agreements between parents that lead to effective and sustainable maintenance arrangements, we hope that parents will not need to turn to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission for a calculation under the statutory scheme. We do not wish to overturn any effective or agreed maintenance arrangements, whatever form they take. Repealing section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 will mean that only when one or both parents make an application to the commission can written maintenance agreements, including minutes of agreement and consent orders, be overturned. Working agreements will continue for as long as both parents want them to.
	The 12-month rule is intended to encourage settlements that contain fair levels of child maintenance, calculated broadly along the lines of the statutory scheme, so that we can ensure that children have regular, ongoing maintenance payments. The rule achieves that, because that is what lawyers invariably advise. As I said earlier, it also enables parents to apply to the statutory service if the arrangements fail. Those principles would not be served by the amendments. If parents are happy with their arrangements, we want those arrangements to continue, but we do not think it right that a specific group of parents should be excluded from the opportunity to use the statutory service if that is what they feel is right for them and their children, so I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Andrew Selous: This group of new clauses and amendments brings us back to an issue on which we spent a considerable time in Committee. The Minister may remember that every single member of the three Opposition parties present asked him to go away and look at this issue. He made a commitment to do so, for which we are grateful.
	The Minister has spoken a great deal about choice and its denial, but there is another way of looking at the issue. Many Conservative Members are saying that in some circumstances, albeit for a minority of separating parents, a family court judge should be trusted to put in place an agreement that will last, reflecting the individual circumstances of that family. Only about 4 per cent. of separating families receive those court orders, although they account for 9 per cent. of families to whom maintenance is paid. We accept that it is a minority who are affected, but I hope that the Government take seriously the position of minorities. Those families have the right to fair treatment, and we contend that many more families would avail themselves of the greater flexibilities offered by the courts if any agreement they entered into lasted more than 12 months.
	Families should not be discouraged from going to court by virtue of the fact that a rigid, inflexible formula can be summarily imposed after 12 months, thus ripping up any agreement entered into voluntarily by both parties in good faith. In particular, fewer family homes are likely to be made over to parents with care if the 12-month rule and the rules reflecting capital transfers continue under the Bill, even though that might be the one wish above all others that a mother has for her children if her marriage breaks down or her relationship with the father of her children comes to an end. No judge would leave a parent with care with only a capital sum—the family home—and no other income. New clause 5 states that there must be ongoing maintenance payments to the parent with care in addition to any capital transfer that has been made.
	Under the Bill, it makes no sense for a non-resident parent to transfer the family home to the mother of his children or vice versa in a minority of cases, even though that might be the one thing that the mother wants above all else from the settlement. The Minister talked about not restricting choice, but he must realise that by maintaining the same position, he is restricting it. No divorce lawyer in their right mind would advise a non-resident parent to transfer the family home to a parent with care, because they would be acting in the certain knowledge that any agreement about maintenance accompanying that capital transfer could be ripped up at a later date. We contend that the Minister is restricting choice.

Michael Weir: Is not the position worse than that, because the Minister could be standing in the way of people coming to an agreement on the transfer of capital assets? He could be forcing them into a situation where they fight about that, so we are not looking merely at the question of revenue payments in respect of children.

Andrew Selous: I agree. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I pay tribute to him for the tenacity with which he has pursued the issue. Perhaps his was a bit of a lone voice in earlier years, but he certainly received widespread support in Committee when he raised such issues. It is a sadness for me that the Government position does not appear to have changed.
	One parent or both can apply to the court to have laid aside any court order with which they are unhappy. We know, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) said, that Sir David Henshaw, who can claim to be the architect of the Bill, thought that the continuation of the 12-month rule and the rules on capital transfers should not be part of the new system.
	It is significant that the Minister managed to unite every Opposition member of the Committee against him. I serve notice on him that at an appropriate point I shall press new clause 5 to the vote. It applies only to England and Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will seek to press his amendment No. 1 to a Division. No doubt he, like me, is awaiting the Minister's response.

Paul Rowen: As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, the clause was discussed at length in Committee. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) has tabled a new amendment that addresses the serious concerns that were raised about the 12-month rule, but allows some reconsideration within the scope of the minutes of agreement. I ask the Minister to examine amendment No. 1 carefully. It allows the minute to be amended if circumstances change. I find it strange that the Bill tries to get parents at the beginning of a divorce, once a separation has taken place, to enter into a voluntary agreement. It would be better if such an agreement were given force by being recognised by the court.

John Penrose: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that contrary to the Government's stated objective of trying to reduce the number of parents who refer their case to the commission in future, the clause is likely to have the effect of increasing the number coming to the commission because they may well go to a court first, and then have to start all over again with the commission after a year and a day? It will have the reverse effect from the Government's stated ambition.

Paul Rowen: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We want to reduce the number of cases that go to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. We already know from the Child Support Agency that it is not working. Having listened to the Minister in Committee, I assumed that by providing advice and support to both parents at the beginning of a separation, it would be possible to reach an agreement that would stick. We have yet to hear how much the Government will commit to making sure that that support and advice are available.
	However, at the end of 12 months, no matter what process they have gone through, a parent can go direct to CMEC. The Bill does not stipulate that they can go to CMEC only in certain circumstances. With all the advice and support that the commission will provide, they can enter into an agreement and, at the end of 12 months, tear it up. That goes against the spirit of the Bill.
	I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that we are dealing with only a small number of case—9 per cent. of cases have maintenance agreements covered by minutes of agreement. Research in Scotland found that 93 per cent. of those agreements are made by owner-occupiers and only 4 per cent. by tenants in rented housing. The research concluded that the agreements were property-driven. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, whose new clause 5 seeks to address some of the issues in respect of property agreements. That is important. One of the problems with the Bill has been the fact that so many of the things that will happen will appear in regulations later. We should try to fix a far more detailed arrangement.
	I accept what the Minister said earlier. There has to be a clear principle that children should be able to benefit from any prosperity that both parents have. The Minister takes the view that we are putting forward tablets of stone that cannot be changed, but neither of the amendments being pressed are like that. I should like to read a little more from what Sir David Henshaw said in his report, because it comes to the crux of whether voluntary agreements will be worth the effort put into them. Sir David said:
	"I recommend that consent orders obtained through the courts should not be able to be overturned by the administrative system. This would remove the current 12-month break-point which enables parents to move between consent orders and the administrative system. The order from the court would be given primacy and the courts would become responsible for varying and enforcing consent orders, in effect tying such cases into the legal system."
	I know that when the CSA was created, no standard assessment was made of what should be paid for maintenance. If the CSA has done one good thing, it is to have set in place a fairly well accepted system of what payments should be made.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman has quoted Sir David Henshaw. Does he also recall the very first recommendation of Sir David's report? I shall remind him of it. Sir David said that although we should
	"Create a system that allows parents to make their own arrangements",
	there should also be
	"quick and effective involvement from the state where such arrangements are not possible."

Paul Rowen: I agree, but nothing in our amendment negates that fact.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an agreement that can be enforced in the same way as a court order is likely to be much quicker than starting from square one and making an application to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission?

Paul Rowen: If some of our concerns about the staffing of CMEC and how it deals with the historic cases are not addressed, we will find that the new commission will not be able to deal with cases. I come back to the point that we are trying to encourage a voluntary agreement and that parents should be able to get advice from the various agencies. Minutes of agreement should have some force of law for the small minority that go into them, but the 12-month rule does not provide that.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that new clause 5 and amendments Nos. 1 and 13 try to support the Government's objective of making voluntary arrangements popular and of making them stick and be an encouragement? In fact, those measures from the Opposition parties try to support the Government's objectives in the Bill.

Paul Rowen: I agree entirely. We need to ensure that the minutes of agreement have some strength and last longer than 12 months. Family lawyers have said that the 12-month rule has acted as a deterrent to couples in making consent orders or minutes of agreement because both parents know that they are free to break the agreement after the 12 months by going to the Child Support Agency.
	The amendments are sensible; the numbers involved are small and the amendments would ensure that sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that any order made proper provision for future maintenance. As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire has said, the amendments support the Government in their main objectives. I hope that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), as well as the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, is in favour of putting the amendments to the vote, because we need to place the important issues on the record. We have tried to be constructive and ensure that the Bill delivers its stated purposes.

Michael Weir: I should like to speak to amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen). As has been mentioned once or twice, I have raised this matter on a few occasions previously; Members who served on the Public Bill Committee may find that they have a sense of déjà vu. In Committee, I told the Minister that I had made the last throw of the dice, but I have thought about it again and come back for one last try in the hope of persuading him to see sense.
	New clause 2 also refers to Scottish minutes of agreement. I do not understand why the Government tabled it, as it seems somewhat superfluous. It does not change the existing law as regards minutes of agreement, which would fall under the definition in clause 10, but it still means that they cannot last for more than one year. That is the fundamental difficulty with the whole matter. The Conservative amendments also relate to this. If I understand them correctly, two cover England and Wales only and one covers Scotland separately. The same issues apply in England as those that I have raised in respect of Scotland. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported me during my previous attempts to address this in Committee, for which I thank them. Depending on what the Minister says, I hope that they will support me again today.
	The system of minutes of agreement in Scotland means that an agreement entered into and registered has the same legal standing as a court decree and can be enforced without going back to court. That is a fundamental point. As Members will be aware, the introduction of the prospect of separating couples entering into a voluntary minute of agreement under the new system was widely welcomed when the Bill was published.

John Penrose: The Minister said that in the absence of this proposal children are likely to be left without any maintenance because the existing arrangements have broken down. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that cannot happen because the court order or minute of agreement is enforceable via the courts?

Michael Weir: It is enforceable in the same way as a court decree. The situation is slightly worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. If there is an effective court decree that can be enforced by the use of sheriff officers, bailiffs or whoever is used in England for such matters, with arrestment of bank accounts and all the paraphernalia of enforcing decrees, the process can be relatively quick. If that option is not available and it is necessary to go back to CMEC, the process has to start from the beginning again. CMEC might be super-efficient and get things done quickly, but the history of the CSA does not bode well, given that many cases have lain with it for months, if not years, during which time no maintenance has been paid and arrears have escalated, which becomes a serious problem because when enforcement is attempted the arrears are astronomical and the absent parent will go to any lengths to avoid paying them.
	As I said, the innovation was widely welcomed, and rightly so. I stress, as did the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that the number of people wanting to enter into a minute of agreement that goes beyond the statutory scheme will probably be low, but it is an important group and it is important to provide choice. However, as things stand under the current legislation, this will have little impact because the minute continues to be restricted to one year. Sir David Henshaw recommended that that rule be abolished. One of the hopes as regards the reform of the CSA was that many more people would enter into minutes of agreement, but retaining the 12-month rule puts a restriction on the number who can do so. I think that the Minister will be disappointed by the number who go on to use minutes of agreement. The Public and Commercial Services union has raised concerns as to whether the numbers that he has projected, which underpin future reductions in staffing, will be met. There is an historical perspective to this in that the original 1991 Act envisaged the Child Support Agency taking over all cases of child support from the outset, which proved well beyond its capabilities. The present one-year rule was introduced to give it a breathing space, and that has now been in existence for seven years because the agency was never able to catch up.
	If we are to move forward, we all agree that it is important to get maintenance for children and to get an agreement that is in the best interests of children. The Minister seems to have tunnel vision on the matter; he is looking at only one item. It was the same in the old CSA, which overturned agreements that worked quite well because it was obsessed by the revenue stream, rather than considering the whole circumstances of the family. If we are to allow separated couples to reach agreement, we must allow them some freedom to reach an agreement that suits their circumstance.
	If we proceed with the Bill as drafted, no one in their right mind is likely to enter into an agreement that deviates from the child maintenance levels set out in it, despite the fact that we were clearly told in evidence sessions that many parents wish to consider alternatives. I quote Hilary Reynolds, who I think is the civil servant in charge of the Bill:
	"It is worth noting that when we have talked to some clients about what they find important in a voluntary agreement, sometimes it is not regular payments, but lump sums, mortgage or school uniform payments, or whatever. What suits the parents of the child or children will be a variety of things, not just the standard x amount per period." ——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 29.]
	We also have to remember that when couples with children separate, the agreement comes at a very traumatic period. They are often very wounded, and we are asking them to negotiate an agreement. We need to give them the confidence that the agreement negotiated will be adhered to. I reiterate the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister. As things stand, even under new clause 2—I do not oppose it, but I do not think that it changes the law—parties can still enter into an agreement, and a year and a day later, one of those parties can say unilaterally, "It doesn't matter. This has all worked fine, but I've decided I don't like it any more. I'm going to the commission and asking them to overturn it." The history of the CSA is that many minutes of agreement were overturned because it just looked at the application of the payment for child maintenance. It did not take into account any transfers of capital, transfers of the matrimonial home, transfers of business or anything else, which led to a great deal of problems.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale made the point that research has shown that many agreements were property-driven, which is probably correct because they were bound by capital payments. Sometimes, however, the property is the only large asset there is, and in many cases where a couple are separating, the other party disappears off the face of the Earth as soon as the separation is through. A house is an asset—that is why we have mortgages. It is sitting there, immovable. In many cases one party would very much like to get the house before the other party disappears. The Minister's objection in Committee, which is coming through again today, seems to be the fear that such agreements will be used to get around obligations for child maintenance. None of us wants to see that happen. We all want both parents to adhere to their obligations. We are all trying to get to the same thing, but the Minister is transfixed by that fear. I do not believe that his fear would be realised. Such minutes of agreement, in my experience in my previous life, are not set in stone. They contain provisions for amendment through passage of time or change of circumstances.
	We all recognise that child support is a long-term matter. It is not for one year or five, but for 15, 16 or 17 years. There are some parents who will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for their children. Frankly, however, it does not matter what rules are in place; those who are prepared to do that will still be prepared to do it. The new agency should be concentrating its fire on those cases. Those parents who accept responsibility and are prepared to enter into a sensible agreement should be allowed to do so, and to do so in terms that fit their circumstances. I mentioned the problems with the old agency overturning such agreements and if the rule remains in the current form, the problem will continue. CMEC could do exactly the same and the same problems will arise. No one will enter into a minute of agreement on other than the standard terms.
	After Committee, I tried to think about the Minister's objections to the amendments that I tabled. That is why amendment No. 1 takes its present form. I tried to incorporate some terms that would alleviate the Minister's concerns. I made it clear that there must be independent legal advice before the agreement is signed. The husband cannot say to the wife, "Sign the document, or else," or put pressure on her. They have to receive proper legal advice. I have also made it clear that the agreement must contain
	"provisions for the maintenance of any children whether by regular payments, transfers of capital or a combination of the two".
	It must address the point of maintenance for children.
	The agreement must also contain provision
	"to reconsider any regular payments in the event of a material change of circumstances".
	If circumstances change, as they do over a large number of years, the parties can reconsider the minute of agreement. They can do so through the courts or, if trust has built up over the years, they can adjust it themselves with appropriate legal advice. The provisions should be enforceable in the court. As I said at the beginning, a minute of agreement, if registered in the books of council and session, can have the same impact as a court decree.
	I do not argue that such agreements will be for everyone. Nor do I believe that they are likely to be the norm. They will be for a minority, but it could be a significant minority. They offer a realistic and effective way of dealing with child maintenance without involving the agency. They would take people out of the system and allow them, between themselves, to come to a reasonable agreement. That is behind the idea of allowing minutes of agreement in the first instance rather than involving the agency and all the bureaucracy and problems that there have been. That is why I drafted the amendment to lay down strict conditions that deal with the problems foreseen by the Minister. I hope that he will think again. We should be prepared to allow parents who can do so to enter into such agreements and not insist on the state dictating terms because of the fear that some feckless fathers will use it to get round their responsibilities. Let us try to get that right now; otherwise the problem will continue under CMEC as it did under the CSA.

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Gentleman—Mr. Carswell, is it?

John Penrose: Mr. Penrose.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Penrose. Forgive me.

John Penrose: It is all right, Mr. Speaker. I am prettier than my hon. Friend.
	I rise to agree with all the points that have been made in opposition to the Minister's points, particularly the points of principle, and to add two small points to those that have already been made by fellow Opposition Members.
	First, I am concerned that the Minister tried to justify his position by saying that he believes that it is important to allow people recourse to CMEC if a minute of agreement or court order is no longer working—I paraphrase. As has been ably pointed out, there are plenty of recourses and remedies, if that situation should arise, that do not require people to go back to CMEC. There are plenty of courses that people can use via the courts to vary an agreement that do not require them to go back to CMEC. There does not have to be a mandatory solution for people to go off to CMEC just because court orders or minutes of agreement are likely to fall over and leave people with no maintenance—I think that that was the phrase that he used. That situation is not likely to arise, because the courts will ensure that it cannot. I am stuck when it comes to understanding what mischief the Minister is trying to avoid. I suspect—I fear—that he is trying to avoid allowing any sort of agreement that diverges from the Government's preferred set of purely revenue-based solutions. Why is not he willing to trust the people who are best placed to work out what is right for them—the two separating parents, who have the blood connection with the child—on the assumption that they are being properly legally advised, through court proceedings, on both sides? It is not a big thing to ask. I believe hon. Members should trust the people who put us here, and trust that they are being carefully advised. I fear that the Under-Secretary is worrying about people disagreeing with the Government's preferred Revenue-based solution rather than trying to provide them with a genuine choice.
	Even if the Under-Secretary does not agree with that basic point of principle, may I at least ask him to tackle two technical points, which may be about to hit him on the back of the head if he does not accept some of the more broad-based points that the Opposition are making? If, as he has enunciated in the past, he genuinely wants to reduce the number of cases going to CMEC compared with the number that the CSA handled, does not it make sense to try to allow as many people as possible to choose the route of minutes of agreement or court orders rather than providing a method of undermining those and therefore driving people back to CMEC after a year and a day? Does not he accept that the number of cases coming to CMEC is likely to be higher in future than it would otherwise have been?
	It would also be helpful if—either in the Bill or through regulations—the Under-Secretary tried to explain and define in a bit more detail what he means by a minute of agreement or a court order that is not working. Can he put boundaries around that? For example, the Government have already accepted that they do not wish people to be able to vary their maintenance agreements if their income has changed by less than 25 per cent. up or down. Yet, a year and a day after a court order or a minute of agreement was made, if the income of the parent who pays the maintenance had increased by, for example, 15 or 20 per cent., and would not, under the Government's existing scheme, be eligible for a CMEC-based change to maintenance, the parent with care could request a new order under CMEC because they would get more money under the new regime through the increase in the income of the parent without care, which had nevertheless not increased by as much as the Government determined in the Bill was an appropriate amount to allow for a variation in the payments. Surely that would be a breach of the Government's attempts to limit the number of changes of circumstances and times that people have to go back to CMEC.
	If the Government are willing to accept the principle of variation of income for CMEC cases, should not they also be willing to define the circumstances in which a court order or a letter of agreement can be varied before people can return to CMEC? Will not the Government at least put some boundaries around that, so that it is not simply a question of the parent with care being able to go back to CMEC under any circumstances? Surely the Government should be willing to place limits on that, even if they are not willing to accept the broader principles that the Opposition have expressed.

James Plaskitt: We have largely rehearsed a debate that we held in Committee. Indeed, we are almost a reunion of Committee members at the moment. As some hon. Members have said, I indeed listened carefully to their points about the 12 months and I undertook to think about them again. I did so and I have to tell them that none of the arguments that they presented in Committee or this afternoon has convinced us to change our position. Listening again to the arguments, I think that the Opposition misunderstand the Government's view of court-based settlements. It was implied that we do not like parents to go down that route and that we do not want them to take that option. My views are confirmed by hon. Members nodding their heads. They believe that we are trying to impose a 12-month arbitrary rule, saying, "You can have it for 12 months; then you must come to us", as if we are seeking to beckon people into CMEC. I am encouraged by the nodding heads because it confirms my view of Opposition Members' approach.
	However, those views are not correct. The Government have no problem with people going to the courts for an agreement or a minute of agreement in Scotland, if that is the route that they choose, nor are we saying that such agreements should expire after 12 months and then come to CMEC. As hon. Members have said, it may be perfectly possible within the terms of some court-based agreements or minutes of agreement to return to the court to deal with any problem that has arisen, to get variation in them or to have them considered again. That is of course still an option. Where the parents want to do that and where it is appropriate, that is what they will do.
	The point about the 12-month rule is to cover the eventuality where there is a breakdown—I shall come to the point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) raised about what a breakdown constitutes—and where going back to the court is not an option because it will take far too long or be too expensive for the parents involved, for instance. Where there is a breakdown and no option of returning to the court, there must be provision to secure some kind of settlement, in the interests of ensuring a flow of maintenance to the children. I repeat: that does not mean that we are against court-based agreements or minutes of agreement, nor does it mean that some of them cannot have the flexibility to be adapted as they go along. Some may last for a long time and be perfectly successful. However, where there is a breakdown and recourse to the courts is not going to work, provision must be made to get maintenance flowing to the children. In those circumstances, one of the parties to a previous agreement now has the option to come to CMEC after 12 months, if that is the only way to get the flow of maintenance for the children.

Paul Rowen: I am puzzled by the Minister's comment about it not being possible to go back to the court. Amendment No. 1 sets out a clear framework within which either party can go back to court if circumstances change. I just do not see what his objection to that is.

James Plaskitt: I think that either the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood or I did not express myself clearly enough. In many circumstances it will indeed be possible to go back to court. It is implicit in a court-based agreement or minute of agreement that either party can go back to the court if they wish. I am saying that where there is a complete breakdown and one party decides not to go back to the court, there must be a mechanism to ensure a flow of maintenance for the children. In those circumstances it may in future be more appropriate to come to the commission.

Michael Weir: rose—

James Plaskitt: I promised that I would deal with the point that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare raised about what constitutes an arrangement not working. It is not for me to define that, nor is it for the agency now or the commission in the future. Parents will know if the arrangement is not working. The hon. Gentleman says that we should trust the people who are most closely involved. It may well be that circumstances will change for one or both of the parties after an initial agreement has been struck, but that there is no longer provision within the court-based agreement or minute of agreement to deal with those changed circumstances. The parties will know that, because they will no longer be able to support the children, for example. Those are the circumstances in which they will want to take another route to secure a flow of maintenance. It will be their judgment and understanding that an agreement has broken down, not ours.

Michael Weir: I understand what the Minister is saying, but if the parties enter into a minute of agreement that deals with capital, houses or whatever, as well as with maintenance, and one of the parties decides that it has broken down, whether the other party agrees or not, and goes to CMEC, what will CMEC look at? All CMEC will look at is the percentages of income that need to be paid for a child. There is no way, under its own rules, that CMEC can look at a minute of agreement on anything other than a straightforward division of maintenance, so nobody in their right mind will enter into an agreement that covers anything other than that if the rule stays in place.

James Plaskitt: CMEC is not a separation agency. It is there to ensure maintenance for children. That is the whole point. Again—I am struggling to see what problem the hon. Gentleman has with the provisions—we are saying that where an agreement breaks down and there is no provision for a regular flow of maintenance to a child or children, there must be a way of securing it. It is right to give the parent or parents the choice of accessing the commission in those circumstances.

Several hon. Members: rose —

James Plaskitt: I shall take a few more interventions on this, but we need to make some progress at some point.

Andrew Selous: I agree that we need to make progress shortly, but let me have one more try with the Minister. Does he not accept that in some circumstances, this could seriously be the only means whereby the mother is able to afford a fairly decent roof over her head? The 12-month rule and the current rules on capital transfer mean that there will be fewer non-resident parents willing to make the offer, which could be the one thing, above all else, that the mother wants.

James Plaskitt: It would be a powerful point if there were any evidence of that effect— [Interruption.] Well, the 12-month rule has been in force since 2003 and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no evidence to date that this is operating on property settlements in the way that he suggests. I do not think that it is correct to make that argument.

John Penrose: Let me return to the Minister's point about parents defining when something has broken down. The burden of his response seemed to be that he is reluctant for the Government to set a definition, so may I encourage him to be a bit braver? I say that because the Government have already set some boundaries around what they regard as an acceptable degree of change in income for any arrangements made directly through CMEC in the first place. The Government said that income has to vary by 25 per cent. or more before parents can go back to CMEC for a change in maintenance arrangements. If the Government are willing to set that 25 per cent. boundary as a minimum level of change before people can go back, why are they not willing to apply the same principle to people wanting to start a new claim through CMEC because they want to vary something decided on by the courts? Surely the same principle should apply.

James Plaskitt: I think that the two are entirely different. The point about the 25 per cent. boundary is that we are trying to move away from the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman knows were experienced by agencies in having to deal with an infinite number of reported changes of circumstances and changes of income levels, which made administering the system virtually impossible—or at least difficult to do smoothly and quickly. That is why we opted for the model of annual settlements and the 25 per cent. variation to regulate the extent to which we are doing recalculations and to give the commission a firm administrative basis to work from. That is not the same as trying to second-guess or anticipate the causes of a breakdown in a hitherto established agreement, which is not a parallel situation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument runs from the 25 per cent. arrangement over to this arrangement.
	I am, of course, disappointed in not having been able to dissuade Opposition Members from persisting with their amendments. I reiterate that, despite what they have said—sometimes explicitly, but certainly implicitly—the Government are not opposed to court-based agreements. We entirely accept that some may well last for the duration, which is fine. We are aware of no evidence that the 12-month rule is undermining court settlements or discouraging people from going for them; neither is it having the effect on property that has been suggested. I reiterate that there must be a mechanism for dealing with instances of these court-based agreements breaking down in the interests of ensuring a flow of maintenance to children. If Opposition Members press their amendments to the vote, I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Offence of failing to notify change of address

'(1) In section 14A of the Child Support Act 1991 (Information — offences), after subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) In the case of regulations under section 14 which require a person liable to make payments of child support maintenance to notify a change of address, a person who fails to comply with the requirement is guilty of an offence."
	(2) In that section, in subsection (4), after "subsection (3)" insert "or (3A)".'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Plaskitt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6— Contact addresses—
	'Non-resident parents who are required to make maintenance payments under the Child Support Act 1991 or this Act must take reasonable steps to provide an address at which they can be contacted by the Commission.'.

James Plaskitt: New clause 1 will make it a criminal offence for a non-resident parent not to report a change in his or her address to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. We will amend secondary legislation to introduce the specific requirement to report such a change.
	Although existing legislation requires both parents to report certain changes in some circumstances, that does not cover routine changes of address. The Child Support Agency must still ask the non-resident parent to supply details of his or her new address. Only if he or she refuses, or fails to comply with a specific request, can the agency take action. As a result of the new clause and consequential changes to secondary legislation, as long as the non-resident parent is made aware of the new requirement the commission will not need to make any specific request, and will be able to consider criminal prosecution when an unreported change occurs.
	Maintaining up-to-date address details for non-resident parents will allow the commission to take swifter enforcement action, and will help to ensure that annual reviews are completed without delay. It will also help to prevent the non-resident parent from manipulating the system, for example by claiming that he or she did not receive a warning that a deduction from earnings order would be imposed. Introducing such a requirement, with an associated criminal penalty for failure to comply with it, is not unprecedented—for instance, it is an offence not to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of a change of address—and I believe that this is a sensible and necessary requirement for the commission to adopt.
	New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), would place non-resident parents under a legal obligation to supply the commission with addresses at which they could be contacted. While I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that new clause 1 would achieve much the same effect, and that the Government's approach, unlike his, is backed by sanctions. On that basis, I hope he will agree not to press new clause 6 to a vote.

Andrew Selous: I expect there to be much more agreement on these new clauses than there was on the last group of new clauses and amendments. I can tell the Minister at the outset that I shall be happy not to press new clause 6, as new clause 1 is slightly better drafted and, unlike mine, contains an offence category. Nevertheless, I feel that I can claim a small amount of credit, because I told the Minister in Committee that I felt that this measure should be in the Bill. When I was a member of the Select Committee during the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised the matter with the then chief executive of the Child Support Agency.
	It is a fact that many non-resident parents simply disappear from the radar screen and cannot be traced, and it should be a basic requirement for them to inform CMEC of their permanent addresses. However, I should like to know what information the Government intend to publish about prosecutions for this offence. It is one thing for the Bill to specify an offence, and another thing for action to be taken. In the past, CSA powers have not always been used so extensively.
	I should also be interested to know whether the Government intend to contact the utility companies, and perhaps mobile phone companies, when trying to obtain addresses. Hon. Members have raised constituency cases in which mobile phone companies have clearly known the addresses of non-resident parents. Will mobile phone and utility companies be under any obligation to give the Government the information? Given the inclusion of new clause 1 in the Bill, it seems to me an odd state of affairs that companies might not pass on information that the Government require.
	My ears did prick up somewhat when the Minister mentioned the DVLA requirement that all motorists must provide their address to it. Is he aware of the serious problem of drivers who provide what are effectively post office addresses, or addresses at which the police have absolutely no hope of making contact with them? I have called an Adjournment debate on that subject, as it happens to be a particular problem in my constituency for reasons I am happy to tell the Minister about afterwards. It is a widespread problem; it is a problem for at least 13 police forces across the country. The Minister might need to look into this matter more carefully, perhaps in another place, and he might also need to reword his new clause because I have worries that it might not be as well worded as it should be—although I accept that it is better worded than mine. I am happy to speak to him about the experiences I have had with the DVLA.
	If we are to include such a provision in the Bill, we should ensure that it works. We had a history of the CSA not having the powers it needed, and it will be a travesty if we bring forward a measure that we think will work and then find that it is defective.

Paul Rowen: I welcome these new clauses, as a serious issue highlighted in the Select Committee report is that there is an arrangement in only 51 per cent. of current cases; the other 49 per cent. do not have an arrangement. The reasons for that include the reclaim of benefit proceedings in respect of the CSA, and non-resident parents going missing and it being difficult to track them.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talks a lot of sense, however, when he highlights some of the problems that will be encountered in enforcing this new regulation. While I welcome it, it might need to be fleshed out more in the other place, because it is important that the relevant agencies and utility companies understand that if a parent does not provide the necessary information CMEC will have the wherewithal to require various bodies to provide it. That is what is missing from the new clause. I welcome what it does, but we should amend it a little further to ensure that CMEC has the legal powers to require agencies to provide information about a non-resident parent when that person is clearly breaking the law and is not providing CMEC with a change of address. If CMEC is to be effective—if the mere 51 per cent. of cases with arrangements is to increase—we need stronger powers even than those that are currently included in the new clause.

James Plaskitt: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is entirely right that he raised this matter in Committee, and because we had been listening we thought about it and agreed that this aspect needed strengthening—hence the new clause. As the Government are better at drafting them, our new clause is stronger than his. I welcome his decision not to press his new clause, as we want to achieve the same result and this debate is merely about how to get right the mechanism for doing it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about publishing information on prosecutions. They will, of course, become a matter of record, but I point out to him that at the end of October 2007 the CSA had prosecuted 198 cases for failing to supply information in this financial year, and over the same period the agency has prosecuted seven cases for supplying false information. All of them have been successful. I do not know what the scale of prosecutions will be in respect of the new offence, but once it is in force and is applied the figures will be public information.
	The hon. Gentleman asked, as he did in Committee, about access to mobile phone records. Mobile phone billing addresses are classified as low-level communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but the CSA is not a registered public body under that legislation, which is why it does not have access to the records. It will be up to the commission, once it is established, to decide for itself whether it wants to register and therefore fall under that legislation.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the use of post office addresses and non-traceable addresses. I shall look into that issue, and I am grateful to him for raising it. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) also welcomes our proposal. He rightly says that it needs effective sanctions behind it—it has them. The offence will be very clear and the necessary sanction will be in place to enforce it. I am pleased that new clause 6 will not be pressed to a Division and that there is support for Government new clause 1.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Objectives of the Commission

'(1) The Commission shall have the following objectives—
	(a) to seek to ensure that every child who is living apart from one or both parents continues to share in the income and prosperity of both parents throughout their childhood, through the establishment of effective maintenance arrangements;
	(b) to enforce liabilities incurred pursuant to the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48), whether or not a current liability for a child exists.
	(2) In promoting the establishment of effective maintenance arrangements for a child under subsection (1)(a) the Commission shall—
	(a) encourage and support the making and keeping by parents of appropriate voluntary arrangements for their children;
	(b) support the making of applications for child support under the Child Support Act 1991 and secure continuing compliance, when appropriate, with parental obligations under that Act.
	(3) The Commission shall aim to pursue, and to have regard to, its objectives when exercising a function that is relevant to them.'.— [Andrew Selous.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 7— Approval of Operational Plan —
	'(1) The Commission must—
	(a) prepare an Operational Plan to establish how it will meet its objectives under section 2 of this Act and;
	(b) publish the Plan in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate.
	(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the Operational Plan published under this section.
	(3) The Operational Plan shall not have effect unless, within three months of the date on which it is laid before Parliament, a motion has been made in each House considering the Plan.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations determine the categories of information to be included in the Operational Plan.
	(5) Regulations made under subsection (4) may include details of staffing levels the Commission considers it appropriate to maintain in order for it to fulfil its functions.'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 7, leave out Clause 2.
	Amendment No. 17, in clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1) The Commission's main objectives are—
	(a) to maximise the number of those children who live apart from one or both of those parents for whom effective maintenance arrangements are in place;
	(b) to secure the payment of any arrears of child support maintenance including sums owed pursuant to the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) prior to the establishment of the Commission.'.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that the Government will agree with the objectives of the new clause, which are primarily to ensure that CMEC is reminded of its specific and important obligation to chase up and secure the historical arrears of child support liability. The arrears able to be collected and paid are reckoned to be £1.4 billion. That massive sum should have been paid through to the children of this country but has not, and we are determined that it will not be forgotten or pushed under the carpet.
	I accept the Government's genuine commitment to this area of debt, and I do not doubt either the veracity of what the Minister said in Committee or his intention. CMEC will be a non-departmental public body and it is vital that this matter of debt is included in the Bill. That is why we have adopted the draconian approach of proposing to remove clause 2 and drafting new clause 3. The Minister will recognise much of clause 2 in new clause 3. He will be pleased that we have not really proposed removing anything—we have merely proposed adding the highly important requirement that the historical debt should be recorded in the Bill.
	We have also proposed that "every child" should have a right to continue
	"to share in the income and prosperity of both parents throughout their childhood".
	Clause 2 has a slightly different wording. It aims
	"to maximise the number of those children...for whom effective maintenance arrangements are in place."
	The Minister may think that we are merely proposing a small change of words, but the phrase "every child matters" is significant—he will recognise it from elsewhere within his Government.
	It is important to focus on the issue of debt. In June, 881,300 non-resident parents were in arrears, 91,470 of whom owed £10,000 or more. Some of my constituents have debts of £30,000 to £40,000 owed to them, which they want paid over to their children. We welcome the CSA's operational improvement plan target to collect an additional £213 million of debt by March 2009, but we want CMEC's instructions in this regard to be clear in the Bill.
	The CSA's 2006-07 annual report has not yet been published, so we do not know the current level of debt. The report is overdue, and we hope that it will be published soon.
	In Committee, Ministers described effective maintenance arrangements as those that are working, where money is flowing and in which parents meet their financial responsibilities. That is right as far as it goes, but it contains no reference to the historical debt. Indeed, it refers to cases with a continuing maintenance obligation, and in many cases of debt there may be no current maintenance liability, perhaps because the child has left secondary education or is living with the former non-resident parent.
	A generation of children have lost out on the vital financial support that Parliament said they should have because of the failure of the non-resident parent to pay child support and the failure of the CSA to enforce those liabilities. Those debts must not be forgotten. Non-resident parents must not be allowed to escape their obligations. The legacy of failure cannot be simply brushed aside as many families are still owed large amounts of money.
	The CSA already has an enormous armoury of enforcement weapons at its disposal and it has not always used it with sufficient rigour in the past. The problem has not been a lack of tools, but the fact that debt collection and enforcement has not been as high a priority as it should have been in the CSA. The processing and collecting of current maintenance was given higher priority. New clause 3 would ensure that past debt has equal priority, and that would be laid down in primary legislation.
	When the new commission configures its business model, it should do so around two equal objectives—the responsibility to establish and actively support continuing child maintenance, and the responsibility to collect past debts. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on new clause 3.

Paul Rowen: I shall speak to new clause 7 and amendment No. 17. The latter would do what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) seeks to achieve with new clause 3, and we will support him if he chooses to press that to a Division. We made the point in Committee that the new commission must make a commitment to the collection of historical debt.
	On the basis of figures from March 2006, £3.5 billion has not been collected by the CSA, and the total rises by £20 million a month. That is according to last year's CSA report, and the 2006-07 report will probably show a further increase. We all have examples of non-resident parents who have gone missing and owe the parent with care tens of thousands of pounds. A lady who came to see me last year is owed £24,000, which has placed a huge burden on her. It means that her children are not getting the support that they deserve and the non-resident parent has got away with evading his responsibilities.
	We have all signed up to the main aim that CMEC should be a fresh start—a clean break from the CSA and the failures of the past. Some of us argued that it might be better if the past debt were dealt with by a residuary rump, which could concentrate solely on that. The Government did not come to that decision, but it is important that CMEC's objectives should state clearly that it has a major commitment to clearing that historical debt.
	A generation of children has already grown up without the benefit of the support that the CSA was supposed to provide for them. They have gone through the system, but in establishing CMEC we need to ensure that the actual collection of the historical debt has equal priority with the new arrangements for a new generation of children. As the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, almost 100,000 of the 881,300 non-resident parents with arrears owe more than £10,000. That is a huge amount, so it is important that we make that debt a major priority.
	New clause 7, which we shall press to a vote, would make provision for Parliament to approve the operational plan. The plan would have to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and considered by both Houses within three months. Regulations under the operational plan would have to give detail about the staffing levels the commission considers appropriate.
	A major concern about the Bill—expressed by Janet Allbeson of One Parent Families, who gave evidence to the Select Committee—is that it is very much a skeleton, and much of its detail will be in regulations, which, of course, are impossible for us to amend. It is true that CMEC will have to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State, which can be laid before Parliament. With great respect, however, I suggest that an annual report is just that; it looks back at the year that has just finished. It does not give Parliament the wherewithal to hold that new arm's length agency accountable for what it plans to do in the coming 12 months. Insisting that the operational plan be laid before Parliament would deal with many of the issues that we raised in Committee, such as the IT systems, the staffing levels or the giving of information and advice, provision for all of which is to be made later. Some of the regulations have been produced for us, as the Minister promised in Committee, but they are still only in draft and we do not have all the information.
	One of our major concerns is about staffing. The regulatory impact assessment is that CMEC's caseload will be reduced from the current figure of 130,000 for the CSA to 100,000. That may be the case. The staffing cuts already programmed envisage a 15 per cent. reduction for CMEC, taking the head-count down to 9,500 by March 2008, which in a perfect world might be okay. However, the problem that we have, and the concern that we raised in Committee, is that we have no evidence yet as to whether the case load will reduce as quickly and as drastically as is envisaged in the plan.
	We argued in Committee that there should be no reduction in staffing levels until CMEC has proved that it is functioning at the required standard. One of our concerns is that a new series of arrangements will have to be put in place, a new series of advice and information will have to be set in train, and new cases operating under the third type of child maintenance system will have to dealt with—at the same time as dealing with the huge historical debt and the nearly 900,000 non-resident parents who are in arrears. If that happens, and the staffing reductions continue, Parliament will have no recourse to hold CMEC to account.
	It is unfortunate that so much of the detail of how CMEC will operate has not been included in the Bill, although both Opposition parties moved amendments to try to change that. The new clause would make CMEC more accountable to Parliament. The new commissioner has already been appointed, despite the Prime Minister's statement about appointments being approved by Parliament. That has not happened in this case. The rest of the board, however, has not been appointed, and the House should have some say in how CMEC is going to be run. Giving it a statutory duty to present to Parliament an annual operational plan that looks forward not back—which is what we believe that the annual report will do—will give the House a proper opportunity to make sure that, at the third attempt, following the setting up of the Child Support Agency, CMEC delivers on its objectives.
	Although we have signed up to the broad brush of what the Government are trying to do, we believe that a lot of the detail has still not been filled in—detail that is vital to the success of CMEC. I am talking about staffing levels, IT support, and the provision of information and advice. None of those things are decided yet. If the operational plan were laid before Parliament, there would be an opportunity for Members on both sides to contribute positively to ensuring that CMEC gets the start that we all want. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause, which is not controversial. Implementing it would involve no additional costs. However, it would ensure that hon. Members could play a full part in ensuring that CMEC delivers on its objectives.

Michael Weir: In principle, I support what hon. Members are trying to do. Like other hon. Members, I have many constituents—mostly, but not exclusively, women—who are owed huge debts by absent parents. Those absent parents have been chased for many years, but, to date, there has been little success in obtaining the money. However, there is one point that gives me some concern. The question of how the historical debt arose was raised during the evidence session in the first sitting of the Public Bill Committee. In particular, in the early days, if the CSA could not get in touch with somebody or somebody did not respond, it would often put in an assessment on the basis of an assumed income, which was much higher than the person's real income. As a result there is a large historical debt, going back many years, based on an income that the person who owes the debt never had. One could argue that that is the person's own fault for not dealing with the CSA in the first instance. However, it raises the question of what we are going to do about setting out the true level of historical debt.
	When we asked Lord McKenzie about that point in the evidence session, he said:
	"We would like as many of those old debts to be cleared as possible. Obviously, that is quite resource-intensive...One of the things that it is proposed we do is, rather than write off debt, create a provision for reflecting the effect of inflated or uncollectible debt in the account. However, those debts would remain in being and would not be written off until there is consent from the parent with care."
	The difficulty with that approach is that there could be a large debt that was not actively chased on behalf of the parent with care. In fact, nothing would be done with it—it would simply sit on the accounts of the CSA or CMEC. When Stephen Geraghty was asked about this, he said:
	"There comes a point in any debt collection exercise where it is a question of how much we can get. I think that we are a long way from that, but presumably the commission and Parliament will, at some point, want to consider whether they want to keep the debts going." ——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 34-35, Q83-84.]
	There could be two types of debt: debt due to the Treasury; and debt due to parents with care. While I fully support what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is trying to do—I do not want real debt to be written off either; I want it to be pursued—I am a little worried about how we set the level of the debt. Will we take any account of what was, presumably, inflated debt in the first instance?

Paul Rowen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our experience of the poll tax was that local councils dealt with high levels of non-compliance and non-payment? The bulk of that debt has now been collected through continued enforcement action, and very little has been written off. How much of the £3.5 billion does he think should be written off?

Michael Weir: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am not suggesting that the debt should be written off. However, there is a fundamental difference between debt involving the poll tax and that involving the CSA. The poll tax debt was known to be correct—people simply did not pay—and there is still a fair amount outstanding in many local authorities. I would like to know what is proposed to address the problem that there might be a lot of ancient debt that does not reflect the true liability.

Andrew Selous: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that clauses 29 to 32 address debt management powers. There is universal agreement on both sides of the House that the figure of £3.5 billion is artificial. It was created along the way when some extra liabilities were imposed, almost to try to get the attention of non-resident parents. I am focusing on the £1.4 billion figure. If addressing that amount was one of CMEC's objectives, I would be happy.

Michael Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which has put my mind at rest to some extent. However, his proposal does not say that; it refers only to the debt. There is a danger that if we are saying to parents with care, "We will pursue your debt," we may well be thinking about different figures. They might be thinking that they are due a sum of £30,000 or £40,000, but the true figure might be less than that. I would not like to raise false expectations of the amount that they might get.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Angus (Mr. Weir) for their contributions to the debate. Reference was made to the agency's 2006-07 accounts, and I am happy to confirm that they have been laid today.
	We believe that the existing objectives are right, and remain the best way to achieve the outcomes that we want for children. The amendments would give the commission two main objectives rather than a single overarching one. They would give the commission a second objective, of equal standing, requiring it to secure payment of arrears accumulated under the Child Support Act 1991. However, the objectives, as drafted, already set the collection of debt as a priority for the commission. The last part of the second subsidiary objective is to secure parental compliance under the Child Support Act. As I explained in Committee, that sets the commission a clear objective of securing compliance with all liabilities under the Act, including the collection of arrears, regardless of when they arose.
	We believe that it is right that that is a subsidiary objective. The overriding priority of the commission must be to get effective maintenance arrangements in place for as many children as possible. By focusing on that, the commission will be helping to eradicate child poverty, and it is difficult to envisage a more important objective. However, I stress again that the arrangements do not allow the commission to ignore existing debt in any way. I hope that I have sufficiently emphasised the fact that the subsidiary objective prevents that. In addition, we expect the commission to have clear targets underpinning each of the objectives, including those on debt. The collection of arrears is vital to the successful delivery of the main objective. The system will not work unless the commission is seen as an effective collector of the money owed to parents with care.
	We have concerns about the wording of the first main objective in new clause 3. First, we do not believe that it is feasible to require the commission to ensure that there is a maintenance arrangement in place for every child; indeed in some cases—for example, where the non-resident parent is violent—it may not even be appropriate. Requiring the commission to maximise the number of effective maintenance arrangements in place achieves the same clear goal, but without the difficulties. Secondly, although we wholeheartedly agree in principle with children sharing in the income and prosperity of both parents, we do not believe that the wording of the new clause is necessary; in fact, it may present problems.
	The current objectives have broadly the same effect as those proposed in the new clause. The commission must maximise two types of arrangements: arrangements established through the statutory maintenance service, which are, of course, based on the income of the non-resident parent, and appropriate voluntary arrangements. "Appropriate" means arrangements that are suitable given the particular circumstances of the parents in question, and arrived at in full view of all the available information. That information includes the amount that would be received through the statutory maintenance service, and we expect most voluntary arrangements to be broadly in line with the formula. That will ensure that children share in the income of both parents.
	However, the whole point of voluntary arrangements is that they are flexible and can be tailored to the specific needs of parents. We want the commission to support parents in reaching the arrangements that are best for them. We do not want the commission to interfere in an attempt to ensure that arrangements are closely linked to the non-resident parent's income. The final part of the proposed first objective refers to
	"the establishment of effective maintenance arrangements".
	We deliberately want the focus to be on arrangements being "in place", as the Bill says, rather than just being "established", so as to emphasise the importance of arrangements being sustained, not just set up.
	New clause 7 proposes that we legislate to require the commission to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament an operational plan detailing how it will meet its objectives. Let me see whether I can dissuade the hon. Member for Rochdale from pressing that new clause to a Division. It is clearly essential that the commission produce robust plans and shows how it will meet its objectives. However, we do not need to legislate for that, as Treasury guidelines already make such actions a requirement of the commission's funding.
	The framework document that must exist between the sponsor Department and an arm's length body requires that a number of financial and management documents be in place. They include a corporate plan looking three years ahead, which the body must submit annually to its sponsor Department. Treasury guidance sets out the key matters that should be included in the plan. Those matters include: the key objectives and performance targets for the future years, and the strategy for achieving those objectives; alternative scenarios and an assessment of the risk factors that could affect the plan but which cannot be accurately forecast; and other matters that can be agreed between the Department and the body.
	The first year of the commission's corporate plan will form the commission's business plan and must include key targets and milestones for the year immediately ahead. It must also include budgeting information to enable the Department to identify the resources that will be allocated for specific objectives. Of course, we expect that to cover staffing levels—an issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Treasury guidance also requires the corporate and business plans of all non-departmental public bodies to be published on their websites, and to be made available to staff separately.
	We believe that that is sufficient to allow scrutiny of the proposals, and that it would be inappropriate for arm's length bodies' business plans to be subject to approval by Parliament. It is worth noting that the commission is already accountable to Parliament through its annual report and accounts, which must be laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the commission's overall performance.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference? Treasury guidance advises that business plans be put on the website. The Bill is a skeleton measure, and we want to make sure that working arrangements are subject to scrutiny by Parliament, which is a fundamental difference.

James Plaskitt: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made the case for making the detailed operational plans of a non-departmental public body subject to approval by the House of Commons. There is no precedent or argument for doing so. I entirely accept his desire to subject the commission's activity to adequate parliamentary scrutiny—of course, that is right—but as I tried to explain, the commission is obliged to publish its accounts and annual report, and it remains answerable to Parliament via the Secretary of State, who must appear before the House. I believe that those provisions are adequate, and it is not appropriate to go further and try to micro-manage the department's operational plan on the Floor of the House. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Selous: I listened carefully, as always, to the Minister. I welcome the fact that the CSA's accounts have been laid before Parliament, but if they had come out on Friday we would have had a little more time to look through them.
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said about new clause 3. May I reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) and others? I have no problem at all with authorities using the powers in the Bill, with the permission of the parents with care, to write off debt that is uncollectable and should probably never have been accumulated in the first place. That is common ground, but I remind the Minister that we have a long history of getting this wrong, and the failure to collect debt has undermined the CSA's work in the past, and will undermine CMEC's work in future. It will not help that fundamental change of culture that we want—the willingness to pay child support—which will be a key component of CMEC's success.
	Turning to new clause 7, the CSA had a troubled history, and this is Parliament's third attempt to get that incredibly important area of law right. Hon. Members play an important role, and they should be forced to take an interest in what CMEC does. Many of us were not entirely happy with the decision to set up CMEC as a non-departmental body, and we failed to see why it should not become an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. It is even more important, given that it is to become a non-departmental body, that Parliament should have the role of scrutinising its plans in future. Should the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) wish to press new clause 7 to a vote at the appropriate time we would support him, and I shall now press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Pleural plaques

'A claim for a payment under Part 4 may be made by—
	(a) a person with asbestos-induced pleural plaques, or
	(b) a dependent of a person who immediately before death was aware that they had asbestos-induced pleural plaques.'.— [Mr. Clapham.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Michael Clapham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 4 relates to part 4 and seeks to import into it payments for pleural plaques. On 17 October, a decision was made in the House of Lords that pleural plaques should no longer attract compensation. The judgment suggested that pleural plaques were symptomless — [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are not staying to take part in this debate or to listen to it, perhaps they would like to leave the Chamber quietly.

Michael Clapham: The judgment argued that there should be no compensation for pleural plaques, a condition caused by exposure to asbestos. It occurs as the asbestos is passed through the lung to the back of the lung and the pleura that protect it, and it causes a hardening of those pleura. The judgment suggested that the condition was symptomless and therefore not compensatable. It went on to suggest that if a man suffers anxiety as a result of pleural plaques, it is caused not so much by the condition as by the fact that he has been told that he has it.
	I find that judgment quite bizarre and quite appalling. It belittles claimants and it causes great anxiety for them, because they know that there is no chance whatsoever of redress. An amount of evidence is available to suggest that they are not as symptomless as the judges in that case thought. I accept that the five judges gave their judgment unanimously, which makes it a difficult one to overturn. As the Minister will be aware, we saw his hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice, and there was some concern that we will not be able to overturn that judgment. The only means of seeking some redress now is to consider whether we might be able to include provision for payments to be made in Bill. I know that there are difficulties with that.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend received legal advice from two senior Ministers, who assured him and me that the Law Lords' outrageous decision was UK-wide and therefore could not be overturned. He may be aware that the Scottish Parliament is making an effort to have the decision overturned, and the best of luck to it; I hope that it manages to do so. It has the political will to do it, and if the same political will existed in this House, perhaps we could cover the rest of the UK and get compensation for those who thoroughly deserve it.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful for that intervention. I know that my hon. Friend has dealt closely with this complaint because there are people in his constituency who suffer from pleural plaques. He has sought some form of statement that might help the House deal with the situation arising from the pleural plaque decision on 17 October.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend said that our hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) has constituents who might be affected. Is it not true that practically every Member in the House will have such constituents? If my hon. Friend wishes to use his new clause to probe the Government today, perhaps he might add that many of us want this place to rectify the position so that our constituents who are affected will get compensation.

Michael Clapham: I have no doubt that the Minister heard what my right hon. Friend said, and will take his point on board.
	We may need to discuss the matter with the Ministry of Justice to decide how to take things forward. If we were able to get the provisions in question into the Bill, we would have to look at how we might pay compensation to people with pleural plaques. It has to be recognised that the Bill deals with mesothelioma, and I accept that mesothelioma—cancer caused by asbestos—is much more unremitting and aggressive, and it is terminal. Pleural plaques are not in that category, but they do indicate that a person's situation may worsen. They could develop into asbestosis, which is fibrosis of the lung, or indeed into mesothelioma.
	In preparation for this debate, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North, I met a branch of the GMB union in London—the "London laggers". The two officials whom we met, Jim Parish, chairman of the laggers, and Tony Kent, their secretary, told us that they have kept a record of their members from 1989 to the present day. On average, there have been 12 diagnoses of pleural plaques each year since 1989. They say that a number of deaths have occurred as a result of mesothelioma cancer and other cancers, but they could not refer us to a record of those deaths, because many occur when the men have retired and lost contact with the union branch, so they are noted only when someone mentions that one of their colleagues has died or is being buried. There was no correct record of the number who had developed mesothelioma, but the officials were convinced that pleural plaques led directly to a worsening of the situation.
	The Minister may be aware that some people say that pleural plaques are general throughout the population, but that is untrue. Others will say that pleural plaques are not altogether concerned with exposure to asbestos.

James McGovern: My hon. Friend is aware, of course, that pleural plaques can be detected only via an X-ray, but he is also aware that the condition constitutes an irreversible damage to the tissue of the lung. Does he agree that it is hard to believe that, if such damage were caused to visible tissues on any human being, compensation would be denied?

Michael Clapham: I agree with my hon. Friend. If there is a physiological change, and the court judgment accepts that, in my estimation that amounts to a loss of faculty, which should be compensatable.
	As I said earlier, people say that pleural plaques are widespread in the general population. Others say that they are not altogether related to exposure to asbestos. Hugh Robertson, the director of social insurance for the TUC, sent me a copy of an e-mail, which I shall read out to the Minister. It states:
	"I have today spoken to both Professor Mark Britton, and Professor Tony Newman Taylor. They are probably the most pre-eminent chest physicians in the UK and world renowned experts on asbestos-related diseases. Both confirmed that Pleural Plaques were not prevalent in the general male population and were an indicator of asbestos exposure (either occupational or environmental).
	Mark said that his estimate would be that around 3-4 per cent. of X-Rays might show Pleural Plaques, although in areas of high exposure, such as East London, the figures would be higher.
	Tony confirmed the strong link between asbestos exposure and Pleural Plaques, although he indicated that it was impossible to say absolutely that asbestos was the only cause, although there is no evidence of any other cause. It is widely held that asbestos exposure is the cause of Pleural Plaques. I have never heard this doubted before, although there is speculation that smoking may make Plaques more likely."
	That was the view of Professor Tony Newman Taylor who, at one point, was chair of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The e-mail continues:
	"You may be interested to know that about a third to one half of those occupationally exposed to asbestos will have calcified pleural plaques thirty years after first exposure. After twenty years, 5 to 15 per cent. will have uncalcified pleural plaques".
	In other words, there is clear medical evidence that pleural plaques are the result of exposure to asbestos.

Anne Moffat: Is my hon. Friend as astounded and disgusted as I am to hear that, during a meeting in this place about pleural plaque, a civil servant compared it with freckles? If people are dismissive and do not understand the issue and what it could lead to physiologically and mentally, we are in dire straits. Surely the new clause is the sort of proposal we should accept to help our people out.

Michael Clapham: There was exaggeration, but we now have evidence to show that such exaggeration is wrong and that pleural plaques generally result from exposure to asbestos rather than simply emerge among the general population.
	Pleural plaques are clearly caused by asbestos, and the decision of the Law Lords is causing a great deal of concern. The Bill appeared to provide an avenue for introducing a payment for pleural plaques. As I said, the laggers that we met were clear that pleural plaques caused breathlessness. I received a letter from Mr. Terence Hook, who lives in Sheffield and has just been diagnosed with pleural plaques. He makes it clear that he suffers from breathlessness, which he attributes to pleural plaques. There is much anecdotal evidence of people with pleural plaques suffering from breathlessness.
	The decision, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North referred, of the Scottish Assembly—

Jim Sheridan: Scottish Parliament.

Michael Clapham: The Scottish Parliament's decision to try to overturn the House of Lords decision is brave. As my hon. Friend said, we were told that the House of Lords decision was one of rigour and would apply in Scotland in the same circumstances as it applied in England and Wales, and could not easily be overturned. If the Scottish Parliament moves to overturn the decision—all power to its elbow—we need to consider seriously how we proceed. I hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the new clause—I appreciate that there are problems with it, and we may need to take up the matter with the Ministry of Justice—he will refer his colleagues in the Ministry to the fact that overturning the decision is being considered in Scotland.

John Battle: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter in the way in which he has done. Those of us who have fought for victims of asbestos for 20 years or more are regularly defeated in the courts, not by companies that refuse to pay out but by insurance companies, which fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out. In the course of 20 or more years, our constituents die and their families get nothing, so we must look to the Government to bridge the gap while we try to find a long-term solution to what is medically proven to be a just and legitimate case.

Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend is correct. If we consider the number of cases that have come to court in the past few years, we can see that the insurance companies behave almost like jackals. They have gone to court again and again until they have got the decision that they wanted. That throws up another question. We are considering a working class disease; it is not a middle class disease. Is it appropriate for middle class judges to make decisions about a disease that affects the working class? It is clear that those taking the decisions have been rather indifferent to the way in which people explain their suffering. When we met the London laggers, we were told that they gave the House of Lords all their evidence from the records that they had kept on the development of pleural plaques among their members. However, the House of Lords came forth with its decision that pleural plaques is a symptomless condition.

Peter Kilfoyle: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent case of Bernie Banton in Australia and the sad circumstances surrounding it, with only eight of the 135 employees working in the James Hardie factory still alive, because of the terrible nature of asbestosis and mesothelioma? Is my hon. Friend also aware that Bernie Banton acted as a witness during the recent election campaign and that the court went to his bedside as he was dying, in order to ensure that there was a double payout and a precedent established for treating mesothelioma in Australia through the courts? He did that with the critical support of the incoming Labour Government there, who will now be duty bound to ensure that victims, in that jurisdiction at least, will receive the compensation that they need and deserve.

Michael Clapham: Part 4 is welcome, because it will make payments to mesothelioma sufferers available within six weeks of a diagnosis. I note what my hon. Friend says and I am aware of some of the progress being made in Australia, but the Bill is also a progressive measure, in making payments available quickly to mesothelioma sufferers.
	In the light of the House of Lords judgment, will the Minister and the Department consider creating a register on which the names of each person who has been diagnosed and is in the queue behind that judgment are kept, as well as any future diagnoses of pleural plaques, rather than mesothelioma? We could keep on that register the names of the man or woman affected, the employer for whom they worked and the employer's liability insurers, so that should there be a worsening of the condition, we could easily get that information and pursue a claim. That would also benefit the Department, because where there is a successful civil claim, the payment that has been made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 will be recovered, as the Minister will be aware. Keeping the register in order to facilitate claims being pursued through a civil action would therefore also allow claims to be made for the recovery of payments made under the 1979 Act. Going down that avenue would be an improvement on the current position. In the meantime, we should consider whether we can move forward on the issue, particularly in the light of what might happen in Scotland.

Andrew Selous: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who follows this issue assiduously—as he does all issues relating to health and safety—and has done for many years, throughout his time in the House. A small number of my constituents with pleural plaques have written to me, so I am aware of the issue from a constituency point of view. I intend largely to quote the Court of Appeal and House of Lords judgments and what was said by some Scottish judges and, more importantly, to consider what the clinicians are saying about pleural plaques.
	The House of Lords judgment of 17 October stated that it was not necessary to pay out for pleural plaques because they are symptomless, as the hon. Gentleman said, do not increase susceptibility or lead to other asbestos-related diseases, and do not impact on health, the ability to work and quality of life. That judgment was based on an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, which went to the House of Lords. Paragraph (d) of section 10 of that judgment said:
	"The presence of pleural plaques does not normally occasion any symptoms"—
	a slight difference of wording. The judgment continued:
	"Very occasionally, in fewer than 1 per cent. of cases, the patient may be aware of an uncomfortable grating sensation on respiration".
	I would separate sufferers of pleural plaques who experience an uncomfortable sensation when they breathe from other sufferers and believe that they should be eligible for compensation, albeit far less than what is provided for in part 4, which deals with mesothelioma, a wholly different condition, as was made clear earlier.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I had intended to say that the Bill allows for the Minister to bring forward regulations for different classes of case and, presumably, different classes of payment. Should we include provisions to provide compensation for pleural plaques, it would of course be much less than what is paid for mesothelioma under the 1979 Act.

Andrew Selous: As I have said, I would be happy for some compensation to be paid in what I am told is the less than 1 per cent. of cases where there is an uncomfortable grating sensation on breathing.
	Paragraph (h) of section 10 of the Court of Appeal judgment said:
	"Plaques do not in themselves threaten or lead to...other asbestos induced conditions nor...are they a necessary pre-condition for such; they do not increase the risk of lung cancer; they differ from diffuse pleural thickening; and their pathology is entirely distinct from that of mesothelioma. It is the exposure to asbestos that they evidence".
	Meanwhile, in the case of Wright  v. Stoddard earlier this year, Lord Uist said:
	"It is not that pleural plaques cause harm which is de minimis: it is that they cause no harm at all."
	But enough of the lawyers—we have heard it said that pleural plaques is a working class disease, so what do middle-class lawyers and insurers know about it? I want to deal with the remarks of the clinicians—not the insurance companies, but the doctors who have spent their lives trying to treat people with different forms of lung illness. Dr. John Moore-Gillon, the president of the British Lung Foundation, has said:
	"Pleural plaques do not themselves 'turn malignant' and become a malignant mesothelioma. They do not in themselves cause asbestosis to develop, nor do pleural plaques increase the risk of lung cancer, and they are a different condition from diffuse pleural thickening."
	Dr. Robin Rudd, a leading consultant, has said:
	"Pleural plaques are not thought to lead directly to any of the other benign varieties of asbestos-induced pleural disease."
	Dr. John Moore-Gillon has also said:
	"This is, however, a different matter from saying that the pleural plaques in themselves give rise to an increased risk of other asbestos-related conditions. Pleural plaques do not themselves 'turn malignant' and become a malignant mesothelioma. They do not in themselves cause asbestosis to develop, nor do pleural plaques increase the risk of lung cancer, and they are a different condition from...pleural thickening."

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Jim Knight.

Jim Sheridan: Perish the thought.
	I wish to raise a point about the statistics. I understand what the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) means in saying that clinicians and doctors do not believe that pleural plaques in themselves lead to cancer or mesothelioma, but can he provide the House with any statistics showing that people diagnosed with pleural plaques go on to develop full-blown mesothelioma as in the cases referred to earlier?

Andrew Selous: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no such statistics, but I think that they would be very useful. I have heard nothing in the debate so far that has shone any light on that area, although the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has anecdotal evidence. I agree that it would be useful if anyone were prepared to collect such data. If it could be verified, it would make an important contribution to the whole debate.
	Let me continue with the remarks of Dr. John Moore-Gillon, who went on to say:
	"My view on this issue represents what I believe to be the mainstream of opinion, and I do not know of any real dissent from this view amongst informed individuals in the asbestos field."
	He makes reference to various standard texts on the subject, one of which is "Occupational Lung Disorders", edited by W. R. Parkes, published by Butterworth-Hienemann, in which it is stated:
	"Plaques themselves have no effect on life expectancy, and are not known to give rise to any complications".
	I have quoted lawyers and clinicians, but I personally place more weight on what clinicians—people who have dedicated their lives to relieving suffering in this area—have to say. I welcome the suggestion that we should collect more data to ascertain what happens over time to people who have plaques. I quite accept the worry and concern caused and I also accept that we should all be able to go to work and come away at the end of the day or at the end of our working lives without being impaired in any way. I well understand where hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, are coming from on this matter, but we must proceed according to the clinical evidence. Where that clinical evidence exists, I for one would be very happy to press the Government for compensation.

Jim Sheridan: I intend to make only a brief contribution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has covered most of the main points. It has to be said, however, that this is a very emotive subject, particularly in the place where I come from—the shipyards on the Clyde. When I worked there, I could see asbestos dust in the air and I remember the foreman telling me not to worry as it would not affect us and we would be okay. I am not suggesting for a moment that the foremen were to blame, as they were doing what they were told in telling people to work under those conditions. I do blame the companies who produced this stuff and asked people to work with it. It is indeed a very emotive subject.
	I can understand where the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is coming from in that we do not have the statistics we need. However, I can provide some practical stats relating to the friends, the families and the colleagues I worked beside. When they are told that they have pleural plaques, many know exactly what the next step will be. They do not need a clinician to tell them that they are safe. They know exactly what the ultimate decision will be. I, for one, have attended too many funerals of people who were told that they had pleural plaques, only to acquire full-blown mesothelioma. I am not talking only about people in the shipyards of the Clyde, as it applies to people in shipyards throughout the whole UK, including Merseyside and elsewhere.
	I can provide the practical evidence, as I said, but I disagree with the Law Lords when they decided that those who polluted with asbestos—namely, the companies— were not responsible for people developing either pleural plaques or full-blown mesothelioma. Who was responsible then? It was the irresponsible doctors who told the sufferers that they had the disease; it was their fault for telling people that they had pleural plaques, as that is what caused their anxiety. How ridiculous is that—blaming the doctors for telling people that they are unwell? That is absolutely incredible. Certainly the people I represent, my friends and my family find it incredible: they simply cannot understand it.
	When farmers and their cattle are affected by foot and mouth or bluetongue, hon. Members fall over themselves in the House to provide compensation to farmers for their dead animals. Yet when human beings contract this killing disease, the same attention is not given to them. That is my point to the Minister. People—not many in the Chamber, but our people—are watching the debate. The Government may be going through a difficult period now, but this is the sort of issue that our people want our Government to sort out. They want compensation for being exposed to the damage that others have not been subjected to. I would dearly love to spread some asbestos dust on the porridge of the Law Lords, so that they can gain an understanding of what exactly this disease does to people.
	I am sorry if I sound emotive, but I am angry at the Law Lords for taking this decision and I am even angrier that my Government—my Labour Government—are not taking the steps that I believe they should to overturn it. I return to what I said earlier about the SNP Administration in Scotland. I wish them every success in bringing forward this legislation. I am sure that the victims and their families will wish them well.
	My only concern relates to the advice given by the two Ministers in the Ministry of Justice. If they are right and the Law Lords' decision applies throughout the UK, I sincerely hope that people are not playing politics with this. If they can overturn it—on behalf of friends and families of the victims, I sincerely hope that they can—I would hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could make some sort of compromise in the Bill to ensure that if it is successful in Scotland, it should be successful in the rest of the UK. This is still a disease irrespective of whether people live in Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast; it does not matter, it is a disease that kills people. I sincerely hope that the Minister takes on board exactly what has been said today and particularly the strength of feeling expressed on the Labour Benches about how this disease can affect people. I sincerely hope for that compromise whereby the rest of the UK can benefit from any compensation agreed by the Scottish Parliament.

Paul Rowen: I am pleased to support the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). In the short time that I have been a Member in the House—he has been here a lot longer—I have noted his very honourable record in taking up issues surrounding asbestosis and industrial disease. Unlike the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), I actually believe that the Government have in the past and up to now been very good at listening to the concerns of people who have asbestos-related diseases.
	I represent Rochdale, which was the home of the world's largest asbestos factory. Literally hundreds of people in my constituency worked at TBA—Turner Brothers Asbestos—and had pleural plaques. Many of them went on to die of asbestos disease or mesothelioma. I know that last year, when the Law Lords overturned the compensation payments for mesothelioma, the Government listened to concerns. What we have in front of us in part 4 is a system of speedy payments that ensure that victims of mesothelioma get adequate recompense. That has done an awful lot to restore people's confidence—certainly that of people in my constituency—that the Government listen.
	The issue of pleural plaques is slightly different and I understand why the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has drafted the new clause. It has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but the fact remains that people have been receiving compensation payments for pleural plaques for more than 20 years. It has not suddenly started happening: small amounts of compensation, not huge sums of money, have been paid regularly for the last 20 or so years.
	That is why it is wholly wrong of the Law Lords to take this decision. It is clearly indicative of the way in which the insurance industry is seeking to minimise its risks by stopping people who have industrial-related diseases from making claims. That cannot be denied. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no way that people can get pleural plaques other than through exposure to asbestos. It is therefore an industrial-related disease. It does not qualify for compensation under the current arrangements, but in the past, under civil arrangements, it has qualified for small payments.
	When the Bill goes to the other place, this should be considered further. We are not asking for huge sums, or indeed for any action that has not been taken before. All we are seeking to do is overturn a wrong judgment by the Law Lords, which has already been done in the case of mesothelioma. People have received payments for more than 20 years, but the Law Lords' decision will end such payments. I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept new clause 4, he will discuss the issue further with Justice Ministers, and perhaps when the Bill reaches the other place we can have a speedy response, as we did last year in relation to the mesothelioma compensation scheme.
	As I have said, literally hundreds of people in my constituency have pleural plaques. Before the judgment I was helping two of them to process their claim, and obviously they are now extremely upset and disappointed that it cannot proceed. I look to the Minister and the Government to rectify the injustice. This is a disease that affects working people, and it is clearly wrong for lawyers and the insurance industry to try to deny people their entitlement.

Peter Kilfoyle: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and echo what has been said about his great work in this regard. I also share the outrage and concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) about the Law Lords' judgment.
	One of my brothers developed pleural plaques, and eventually died of mesothelioma. I remember full well trying, before and after his death, to persuade the authorities to take seriously the situation in which he had found himself, and in which his widow found herself. Happily it was resolved in the end, but not before we had gone through all the legal hoops that could possibly be put in the way of a just and fair settlement. There is, however, no just and fair settlement for someone who dies in such an horrific way as someone who dies from mesothelioma. One must see it or experience it to understand just what kind of death it really is.
	Let me issue a cri de coeur to the Minister. I entirely agree with what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North. People out there do not see this in quite the legalistic way in which it may be seen by some in this House and the other place, and by the Law Lords; they see it as a matter of simple justice and humanity. I sincerely hope that somewhere in the framework of the Bill the Minister will find a way of assuaging the doubts of so many people about the Government's good intentions.

Michael Weir: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). He could not get the name of the Scottish Parliament right, but I will forgive him for that.
	This is a serious matter. The judgment of the Law Lords overturned a situation that had existed for at least 20 years in which pleural plaques were recognised as a compensatable condition. Although pleural plaques do not necessarily lead to mesothelioma, they show that someone has been exposed to asbestos and may well develop a more serious condition. It is serious enough for people to know of their exposure to asbestos, and of what may happen thereafter. The current position reflects the long struggle of people suffering from asbestosis to obtain compensation, and the way in which some companies have tried to get out of paying it. I think that that is a disgrace.
	The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) mentioned the Scottish Parliament and the fact that this was a United Kingdom-wide decision. It is a United Kingdom-wide decision because the ultimate court of appeal in civil cases from Scotland is the House of Lords, and the lower courts in Scotland are bound by the decisions of the House of Lords. This problem can be dealt with only if the law is changed, and that is what the Scottish Parliament intends to do. On 29 November the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, said:
	"Following careful consideration of the 17 October 2007 House of Lords Judgment on pleural plaques and having listened to the views of representatives of asbestos campaign groups and of the insurance industry, the Scottish Government has decided to introduce a Bill to reverse the Judgment so that those negligently exposed to asbestos who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques will continue to be able to raise and pursue actions for damages in Scotland. We will prepare a Bill which would take effect from the date of the Judgment."
	That means that the legislation will be retrospective, becoming effective from the date on which the House of Lords ca'd the feet from under those who were bringing their cases. I understand that it is possible for a Bill to be introduced in the Scottish Parliament because civil law and the law on damages are devolved.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) made an important point. We should bear it in mind that when we speak of compensation for pleural plaques, we are speaking of relatively small sums. Most of those who received compensation received very modest amounts, not in the range of the amounts received by people suffering from mesothelioma. We are not talking about vast sums. We are talking about justice: justice for people who have been exposed to asbestos in the past through no fault of their own.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman is right. The sums awarded in compensation for pleural plaques are minimal; we are talking about the principle.
	There is, however, a more important point. When people are paid compensation their records are kept on file, but that register no longer exists. The people who worked in the industry concerned had worked, and contracted the disease, all over the United Kingdom and indeed abroad. Without the register specifying exactly who they worked for and when, the situation becomes extremely difficult, because people who are diagnosed must trace their records way back. As some of them do not have much time to live, it is important that the information is available when they are diagnosed.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the case of asbestosis, it has always been a problem to establish which of various employers is responsible; hence, perhaps, part 4 of the Bill, and a compensation scheme which I think every Member supports.
	As I have said, this is a matter of justice. People have been exposed to asbestos, either through their work or because they were married to someone who worked in a shipyard or lived in an area where asbestos was used. If the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone presses the new clause to a vote we will certainly support him. The Scottish Parliament is taking action. If the new clause is passed, people will have a way of obtaining compensation quickly. As the hon. Gentleman said, it will be recoverable in the event of a subsequent action. But I suspect that the real answer is for the Government to change the law in England and Wales, just as the SNP Government intend to do in Scotland, and that is a matter that the hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue with the Minister.

James Plaskitt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), whose assiduous campaigning over many years on the issue of asbestosis and associated diseases has played a large part in the measures that we are considering. That is a tribute to his campaigning, and that of many other Members, on what is of course an extremely important issue. I also thank my hon. Friend for his contributions in Committee.
	I entirely understand the strength of feeling that was evident in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). For Members representing areas where many people were employed for a long time in industries that led to asbestos exposure, the effect has been devastating. They are absolutely right to pursue the matter and raise it in the House now and on other occasions. It is a crucial issue for many of their constituents and their families, and I also understand the continuing concern and worry that surround it.
	Like the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I have constituents with pleural plaques, although there are not many asbestos-based industries in my constituency. I have therefore encountered the same issues. I therefore understand the concern, as put to me by them as well as by parliamentary colleagues speaking for many more affected constituents.
	It should be said that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has this opportunity to introduce his new clause precisely because we are at last legislating to bring about speedy and significant compensation payments for mesothelioma victims, and he and other Members have rightly acknowledged that that is an important step forward. I understand, however, why he wants to raise the issue of pleural plaques.
	Many Members are concerned about the recent decision in the House of Lords case of Rothwell  v. Chemical and Insulating Company Ltd and conjoined cases on the civil law in relation to pleural plaques. The House of Lords thoroughly considered the issue on the basis of all the evidence put before it and reached a unanimous decision that pleural plaques do not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. That decision confirms that if a person with pleural plaques goes on to develop any recognised disease in the future they would have a claim in relation to the disease, because pleural plaques are in that sense an indicator of what can happen—as, sadly, we know—but does not in all cases inevitably happen.
	The House of Lords decision is based on two fundamental principles of the law of negligence: first, that compensation in relation to negligence can be payable only where there is actual damage, and secondly that compensation is not payable simply for the risk or worry that something might happen in the future. Overturning those fundamental principles for pleural plaques would create uncertainty in the law and could lead to compensation claims being made much more widely for the risk of an illness occurring or for worry that something might happen—for example, from the effects of passive smoking in the workplace. That would considerably increase the level of litigation and the possibility of weak or spurious claims, and could have damaging effects on both business and the economy.

Paul Rowen: I understand what the Minister is saying, but does he not accept that these payments have been made for more than 20 years and that, therefore, there is custom and practice? They have not led to compensation payments in other areas. This has been accepted as something that has happened as a result of exposure to asbestos and nothing else.

James Plaskitt: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that there has been a long history of such payments being made, but he will know that the recent case came before the court because people brought an action to question whether that should be the situation. He will also know that the payments made over those 20 years were based on previous decisions of the court which have, of course, now been overturned. That is why Members are raising this issue. I hope I have set out the context in which our discussion arises.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: In Crewe, we have a whole generation—two or three generations, in fact—who after the war spent a great deal of time stripping down engines that had all been filled with asbestos, and I am sorry to say that I have lost a whole group of men in the 50s and 60s age group. For those coming up behind who have this dire prospect in front of them it is very worrying not to know whether they will be able to get compensation, because once those works began to be cut down many of them moved into completely different engineering fields.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and, again, I completely understand the point being made. In her town of Crewe, as in other places mentioned by other hon. Friends, there have been specific concentrations of industries that, unfortunately, have given rise to a good deal of exposure to asbestos. Many of my hon. Friend's constituents will have developed the more serious diseases as a result of that and, sadly, will have died. She rightly points out that this issue also still remains relevant because of the development time implied for some of the diseases. She will have constituents who are found to have pleural plaques and many of them will know that, sadly, that is a precursor of something far more serious—and, perhaps, ultimately fatal, as is the case with mesothelioma. Therefore, of course they will have concerns about this issue. They will need to know that it is understood and that there are steps that the Government can take to keep the issue that she and other hon. Friends raise under review. I will come on to what those issues are in a moment.

Jim Sheridan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will make any comment during his contribution about the smart-suited lawyers, the insurance companies or, indeed, the medical profession. It is difficult to get involved in this debate without remembering what happened recently in Scotland, where the law was that when a person died their claim died with them. The trade union movement in Scotland fought hard to get that overturned. It was overturned because when cases came for trial or up for compensation the insurance companies brought in a doctor to look at the victim and make a rough guess as to how long they had to live, and if they had only months or weeks to live they would find a technicality to get that case cancelled in the hope that the person would die and the claim for his family would die with him.

James Plaskitt: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that, and there are undoubtedly questions for insurance companies to answer. He will know, of course, that the circumstances that gave rise to the recent case in the courts were initiated by the insurance companies, perhaps because they had concerns about the levels of claims being made.
	In these cases, it is important that all the evidence is put forward. No one would want to rely entirely on what insurance companies felt about such situations, as they clearly have a vested interest in pursuing one particular line of argument—we all understand that. When the courts—or anyone else—look at this, comprehensive evidence is crucial; that must also come from medics who are independent and do not take a view perpetuated by an insurance company, from other independent experts, and from those who can speak on behalf of the victims themselves and their families. The issue must be addressed in the round. My hon. Friend is right that it must not be considered solely from the point of view of what insurance companies might feel is in their interests.

Andrew Selous: A point has been made about the need to collect proper information in respect of people with pleural plaques, to see whether they do indeed develop into other conditions. Will the Minister address that, as I was concerned to hear that that information might not have been recorded when people were told they were not eligible for compensation? It would be a great pity to lose that source of information, which could give us the data the Minister has just referred to.

James Plaskitt: That is an important point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I think that information might currently be held on that but in a non-systematic way—and I think that that is the issue. That is partly why there is the degree of debate that there is within the medical profession and elsewhere as to whether or not pleural plaques do inevitably lead to worse diseases—or, indeed, whether pleural plaques are entirely and uniquely caused by exposure to asbestos, as there is even some argument about that within the medical science community. Information is crucial, and whereas at present it is not systematically gathered there might be a case for its being so. I will say more about that in a moment.
	As has become evident as the debate on these measures has progressed, the Scottish Executive have indicated their intention to overturn the House of Lords judgment via legislation, so that people who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques will be able to raise and pursue actions for damages in Scotland. Of course, the civil legal systems in Scotland and in England and Wales are completely separate, and the question whether to legislate in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
	I know that the Government's decision not to intervene in the way sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone is disappointing for some hon. Members who feel, as they have said, that pleural plaques should be compensatable. I reassure them that the Government are fully committed to supporting sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

Michael Clapham: Does the Minister feel that there will be a chance to meet the Secretary of State for Justice to try to find a way through this, particularly if the Scottish Parliament decides that it will overturn the Law Lords' decision? The Minister will know that there is a widening disparity between England and Wales and Scotland on a number of issues relating to this field, such as civil damages. Indeed, a briefing that I received from Thompsons solicitors suggests that civil damages settlements in Scotland and England for mesothelioma alone can differ by £30,000. We must deal with the widening disparity in civil damages and seek to secure equality before the law. If pleural plaques were again to become an issue that someone in Scotland could take to court for compensation while such an approach is restricted in England, we would prevent movement to equality. Does the Minister feel that we will be able to take this matter up with the Ministry of Justice?

James Plaskitt: I entirely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I encourage him to maintain a dialogue with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. He rightly says that any circumstances that give rise to disparities in claims are a cause for concern. I understand his fair point about at least having a degree of equality in the treatment of this matter. He will understand that any suggestion to review civil law in England and Wales in the light of a possible change in the law in Scotland is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, and is beyond the scope of this new clause.

Peter Kilfoyle: Following on from the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), if there is such a change in the law in Scotland, would it not be absurd to have a situation in the UK where different conditions applied to an English resident with pleural plaques who was working for a Scottish firm and a Scottish resident with pleural plaques who was working for an English firm? Is it not incumbent on the Government to do something to regularise the situation, regardless of what the Scots do—or rather, to cater for what they do?

James Plaskitt: Let me try to reassure my hon. Friend. It is incumbent on us to keep the relevant aspects of this situation under review. I do not want to prejudge or anticipate issues that the Scottish Parliament might encounter as it examines this proposed legislation and its potential consequences. As I have said, the issues of how government can deal with such cases and the need for consistency must be addressed.
	In addition to the provisions in this Bill, we introduced provisions in the Compensation Act 2006 to provide that, where a person has contracted mesothelioma after there has been wrongful exposure to asbestos at different times by more than one person, negligent persons are jointly and severally liable. That enables a claimant to recover full compensation from any relevant person rather than having to trace them all and recover compensation on a piecemeal basis.
	We are also taking steps to improve the claims handling process. For example, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee is currently considering a new practice direction to ensure that a uniform fast-track scheme for mesothelioma cases based on the one that has been working well in the royal courts of justice is applied consistently in all courts around the country.
	I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has discussed with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), and Lord McKenzie of Luton, from my Department, the possibility of a register for those diagnosed with pleural plaques to include details of employment and the employers' insurers.

Anne Moffat: The Minister is talking about what is incumbent on the Government. They should have a register so that anyone employed in this area who subsequently develops pleural plaques, and perhaps asbestosis, is registered. Who does he think should pay for such a register? Should the Government pay for its administration or—as I believe—should the insurers pay?

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points; I shall say more about the register in a moment, and pick them up then.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I cited the case of people who were young apprentices at the time and who now find themselves struck with this terrible disease. There is a genuine problem in this regard, because the rail companies involved no longer exist. A national register is the very least that there should be.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat).

Michael Clapham: Does the Minister feel that rather than start structuring a register from the beginning, it would be worth communicating with some of the members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who already have registers? For example, Thompsons solicitors keep a register of people with pleural plaques who have contacted them so a database may exist that the Minister could bring together.
	Linking that to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat) abut the insurance companies, does the Minister feel that discussions should be opened up with them—after all, they are the polluter? We are talking about pleural plaques that have been caused because asbestos has invaded people's bodies, so according to the "polluter pays" principle, the insurance company should put the money forward for any scheme related to a register.
	I use the term "scheme related to a register" because, as the Minister will know, people who suffer from pleural plaques come forward for their X-rays because this is linked to common-law damages, but as the common-law damages issue has been removed, there is a need for another incentive. To incentivise people to come forward to put their names on the register, there needs to be a scheme—if that is at all possible—and that should be provided by the insurance companies. Does the Minister feel that they can be encouraged to come on board?

James Plaskitt: I am able to confirm that the Government will explore, with key stakeholders, the idea of a register of the sort that my hon. Friends suggest would be viable and provide practical benefits. I am happy to make that commitment to my hon. Friends. They have focused on the steps that we now have to take, having given a commitment to have the appropriate discussions with all potential stakeholders in this area, and to see how we can proceed with the helpful suggestion of a register.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone is right to say that some of the data that we would need to assemble for the register will already exist. We may not need to start from scratch, and we could include in the register people already known to be in that situation, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). As we make progress with the commitment that I have given, we will have discussions with organisations, such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, that may already be in possession of some of the data.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone makes an interesting point about the position of the lawyers, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian asked how we can pay for a register, if that is the way forward. As we have our discussions, we will want to meet the representatives of the insurance industry, and we will discuss what contribution they can make to establishing a register. That will be an important dialogue, especially given the many comments made in this debate about the contribution of the insurance industry to this issue and the role that it could play in helping us to work out a solution.
	Many Labour Members want us to keep the matter under review, and in doing so, it is reasonable to point out the role of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which monitors and recommends changes in connection with the diseases for which industrial injuries disablement benefit can be paid. That can include consideration of the same lung diseases as are covered by the 1979 Act. If appropriate, the 1979 Act will be changed to reflect new scientific opinion, as expressed to the IIAC. Hon. Members who, for understandable reasons, concentrate on this issue may be aware that back in July 2005, the IIAC published its report on its review of asbestos-related disease. In that report, the council recognised that symptomatic pleural plaques can occur, and that is an important finding, because there is some argument on that point. For the Government, it is important to have advice from an authoritative body that studies all the scientific evidence. We have to depend on the view that the council puts to us, and that is why it is important.

Michael Clapham: The IIAC is especially important. As my hon. Friend knows, it has suggested that pleural plaques can be symptomatic, and that could give rise to a claim for industrial injuries disablement benefit. However, claiming that benefit is not an easy task. For example, over the past five years, the Health and Safety Commission has reported that more than 2.2 million people a year suffer workplace-related illness. Last year, the number of industrial injuries disablement benefit awards was some 6,300. Therefore, the fact that pleural plaques can be symptomatic does not mean that the sufferers will receive industrial injuries disablement benefit. In the case of mesothelioma, we ended up with dual diagnosis, and we may need to reconsider the issue of pleural plaques that cause people to exhibit symptoms and how we could make it easier for them to claim industrial injuries disablement benefit.

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is right that we see very many potential cases, although it can be difficult to obtain industrial injuries disablement benefit. The point is that we need to rely substantially on what the IIAC tells us. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes its report in July 2005, which recognised that symptomatic pleural plaques can occur, which is a change to previous opinion. However, the report also stated that there was a lack of evidence that pleural plaques caused impairment of lung function sufficient to cause disability. I can reassure him that the council continues to monitor all the research on pleural plaques and it will keep the issue under review. Were it to conclude differently at some point in the future in the light of further medical evidence, it would no doubt say something different to us. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the knowledge that the issue is subject to regular review.

Jim Sheridan: If, as forecast, Scotland legislates to reverse the decision, can my hon. Friend tell me what would happen if someone were working for a publicly funded UK organisation—as, say, an apprentice in the Ministry of Defence—and contracted pleural plaques? In which court could they claim compensation? Would it not be ridiculous if someone working in Glasgow could be compensated, but someone who worked in London could not?

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point that serves to underline the complexity of this issue. I hope that he will understand why we are trying to proceed cautiously. We want to consider the ruling of the court and we need to see what happens as the issue is debated in the Scottish Parliament. I do not wish to presume the outcome of that debate. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone will accept that our commitment to look seriously into the option for a register is a step forward along the lines they advocate.
	The new clause relates to payments under the new mesothelioma scheme. The payments that we are making under the new scheme are for people who have developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos, who often have a short life expectancy, and who experience complex, debilitating symptoms, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Mesothelioma can, therefore, be distinguished from the other conditions that we have been discussing.
	The cost of the changes that we are bringing in will be met by the introduction of a compensation recovery process, so that all 1979 Act and new mesothelioma scheme payments will be recovered if a civil compensation claim is subsequently successful. Moneys recovered will then be recycled into the new mesothelioma scheme to make future payments. In that respect, the scheme is self-funding.

Michael Clapham: As the Minister is aware, the compensation recovery unit did not recover compensation from the claimant. If the claimant made a civil claim, there was a windfall for the insurance company. The Bill would introduce a creative avenue, whereby we could recover a payment made under the 1979 Act, which would then go into the fund to meet further claims. That in itself is a step forward. If we were to introduce payments for pleural plaques, and there were to be a successful civil claim at some time in the future, one would expect the same recovery mechanism to apply to those payments.

James Plaskitt: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I am glad that he acknowledges our innovative funding of the scheme. If there are developments in the future, we shall have to examine how the schemes are funded, but at least a mechanism has been established for the new scheme, which will deliver prompt payments for mesothelioma sufferers.
	As my hon. Friend knows, the amount of funding available from introducing compensation recovery is only just sufficient to fund the planned extension of the scheme to all mesothelioma sufferers. Trying to include other diseases in the scheme would greatly increase the administrative work and cost, and undermine the scheme's aim of providing mesothelioma patients with compensation as soon as possible. In addition, if such changes were made, the scheme would no longer be self-funding—and the self-funding element was something that my hon. Friend welcomed.
	I hope that I have been able to give reassurances to Members who have raised extremely important points about pleural plaques and people who, sadly, suffer from them. I hope, too, that I have been able to explain the Government's position in respect of both the court decision and an issue that may be debated in the Scottish Parliament in the near future. Given those reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Michael Clapham: I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. He has noted the feelings expressed by Labour Members about the House of Lords decision about pleural plaques. I am reassured by what he said, so as I do not want the Bill to be put in jeopardy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Responsibilities of non-resident parent

'In section 1 of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) (the duty to maintain), for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) For the purposes of this Act, a non-resident parent shall be taken to have met his responsibility to maintain any qualifying child of his—
	(a) by paying a calculation in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or
	(b) by making payments in accordance with an order set out in subsection (2A) in the circumstances set out in subsection (2B).
	(2A) The order referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall be an order ("the Order") for periodical payments to the child made under section 23(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18) or paragraph 1(2)(a) or (b) of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41).
	(2B) The circumstances referred to in paragraph 2(b) are—
	(a) that simultaneously with the Order the court makes an order under—
	(i) section 23(1)(a),(b),(c), or section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or
	(ii) paragraph 1(2)(c),(d) or (e) of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (lump sum payments or transfer of property orders etc); or
	(b) the order is a variation of an order originally made when one or more such orders were made.
	(2C) Where the court makes an order of the type listed at subsection (2A) and the conditions of subsection (2B) are met, any calculation under this Act shall be discharged and, during the currency of the Order, the Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers to make a calculation under section 4 of this Act."'.— [Andrew Selous.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 263.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Approval of Operational Plan

'(1) The Commission must—
	(a) prepare an Operational Plan to establish how it will meet its objectives under section 2 of this Act and;
	(b) publish the Plan in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate.
	(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the Operational Plan published under this section.
	(3) The Operational Plan shall not have effect unless, within three months of the date on which it is laid before Parliament, a motion has been made in each House considering the Plan.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations determine the categories of information to be included in the Operational Plan.
	(5) Regulations made under subsection (4) may include details of staffing levels the Commission considers it appropriate to maintain in order for it to fulfil its functions.'.— [Paul Rowen.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 263.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Fees

James Plaskitt: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
	'(6) Subsections (3) to (5), (7) and (8) of section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991 (c. 48) (appeals to appeal tribunals) apply to appeals under regulations under subsection (5) as they apply to appeals under that section.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 3.
	Amendment No. 23, in clause 21, page 9, line 32, after 'current', insert 'or deposit'.
	Amendment No. 24, page 10, line 10, after 'current', insert 'or deposit'.
	Amendment No. 25, page 11, line 5, after 'current', insert 'or deposit'.
	Government amendments Nos. 4, and 6 to 11.

James Plaskitt: The group consists mainly of minor and technical Government amendments, but it also includes Opposition amendments to clause 21—"Current account deduction orders". I will begin by explaining why we have tabled the Government amendments, before moving on to the Opposition amendments.
	Government amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 11 refer to regulation-making powers concerning appeals. The Government want to ensure consistency across child support legislation where there is a right of appeal to a tribunal. When we considered the appeal provisions in the Bill, it became clear that there were inconsistencies in how various regulation-making powers were expressed. That could have led to confusion about the division of responsibility between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice. The logical way to clarify matters was to place any new provisions on appeals to appeal tribunals under those already in place in section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991. Amendment No. 2 does that. It is similar to a technical amendment to clause 23 that was agreed by the Committee on 11 October. Amendment No. 2 leads to two consequential amendments.
	Government amendment No. 4 makes it clear that regulations providing for the charging of fees by the commission should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but not those concerning only the procedure and powers of an appeal tribunal considering an appeal. Government amendment No. 11 amends the Social Security Act 1998 to clarify the fact that the reference to fees in clause 6 refers specifically to the regulation-making powers in clause 6(5).
	Government amendment No. 3 is the result of an amendment tabled in Committee before the summer recess by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who I am sorry to see is not present. Under that amendment, a copy of any directions or guidance that the Secretary of State issued to the commission would have had to be laid before Parliament. In Committee, I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment so that we could give full consideration to how powers of direction are used across Government, and to the appropriateness of laying the directions in question before Parliament.
	In the case that we are considering, the Secretary of State's power of direction would be used only in the most exceptional and time-critical circumstances. The power has been provided because although the commission will be a non-departmental public body, ultimate accountability for its performance will remain with the Secretary of State. We had the chance to reflect on the extent of the power over the summer, and we concluded that when the Secretary of State gives a direction, it will be a rare but important step that warrants the direct attention of Parliament, which will provide the necessary and proper parliamentary scrutiny of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the commission.
	Amendment No. 3 therefore requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of any directions given to the commission. The requirement is subject to two important exemptions: the first is for information that is commercially confidential, and the second is for information that may relate to specific individuals. The amendment highlights the importance that we attach to parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State's relationship with the commission. It also shows that we welcome the contribution that the Committee made to the Bill, and that we are willing to act on appropriate suggestions.
	On Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7, if the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is to realise its objectives, it is imperative that it operates within robust and effective governance arrangements, following best practice wherever possible. In the two amendments, it is proposed that the Secretary of State, not the Comptroller and Auditor General, lays the commission's accounts before Parliament. That minor change to the Bill's accounts and audits provisions is in line with recent changes to Government policy, and is supported by the National Audit Office. I reassure hon. Members that altering the responsibility for who lays the accounts before Parliament does not change the Comptroller and Auditor General's authority to audit the commission's accounts, so the change does not weaken parliamentary accountability in any way. The same accounts are being laid before Parliament; it is just a different person who lays them.
	Government amendment No. 8 enables aliment orders in Scotland to be recognised, alongside other private maintenance arrangements. Paragraph 5 of schedule 4 proposes an adjustment to basic and reduced rate liabilities where a non-resident parent has an existing maintenance obligation for a child, but where that obligation is not part of the statutory scheme. The commission can recognise the maintenance arrangement as though it were part of the statutory scheme, with the result that all the children supported by the non-resident parent are treated equally. In such cases, the existing qualifying maintenance arrangement will be either a maintenance order or another form of agreement that confirms the non-resident parent's responsibility for a child.
	The amendment seeks to put beyond doubt the fact that maintenance orders made in Scotland—the term "aliment" is used under Scottish law—are to be treated as qualifying maintenance arrangements. That will remove the risk of people misinterpreting and thinking that non-resident parents who support children under aliment might not benefit from those children being recognised under the statutory maintenance system.
	Government amendment No. 9 ensures that the test for the granting of a warrant for commitment to prison in Scotland under section 40A of the Child Support Act 1991 is the same as that for granting a warrant for commitment to prison in England and Wales, and the same as that for making an order to disqualify the non-resident parent from driving under section 40B of the 1991 Act. We recognise the differences between the Scottish legal system and the system in England and Wales, but child maintenance cases should of course be dealt with in a consistent manner across Great Britain. The amendment will help to ensure that the different court jurisdictions reach decisions in the same way.
	Government amendment No. 10 amends schedule 7 and provides a power, under the affirmative procedure, to change the £800 threshold for the second set of basic rate calculation percentages introduced in schedule 4. That schedule introduces changes to the basic maintenance calculation rate for the future scheme. It amends the existing set of percentages that apply to weekly income of between £200 and £800, and introduces a new set of percentages that apply to any weekly income in excess of £800, subject to a cap of £3,000. The rates were chosen to create approximate parity between liabilities under net and gross income, and the £800 threshold broadly corresponds to the amount of weekly income at which the 40 per cent. marginal income rate tax starts to apply.
	We have said that we will review the rates of calculation during each Parliament, and we have retained the power to change them where necessary through regulations under the affirmative procedure. Amendment No. 10 would allow that same power to apply to the £800 threshold amount, thus ensuring consistency in the way in which maintenance calculation rates may be amended.
	The Opposition amendments to clause 21 relate to current account deduction orders. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, as it gives me the chance to update the House on the progress that we are making. The amendments would expand the breadth of deduction orders and allow for periodic deductions from deposits, as well as current accounts. Since we discussed the matter in Committee on 11 October, we have been considering just how far we should take both the periodic and the lump sum deduction orders. We have had further discussion inside and outside Government, particularly with financial institutions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the representatives of the banks and building societies, who have been extremely constructive in all our discussions. It remains our intention to come back with proposals ensuring that deduction orders have sufficient scope to ensure that non-resident parents cannot easily avoid them. I trust that hon. Members will be content with my response at this stage, and I ask them not to press their amendments.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government amendments, all of which seem entirely sensible, and which tidy up various aspects of the Bill. He spoke about the need for consistency in appeals, and about copies of directions being laid before Parliament. We are particularly keen to maximise parliamentary scrutiny in the Bill. I have no objection to accounts being laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General; I am more concerned about receiving the accounts on time than about who puts them before the House.
	The points about aliment in Scotland are entirely sensible, as is the test of consistency for a warrant of arrest to commit someone to prison in Scotland, so that it is the same for someone in England. We agree, too, with the change in percentages in Government amendment No. 10.
	I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will return to the issue that the Opposition raised in Committee and today in amendments Nos. 23 to 25, which would ensure that deduction of earnings orders are imposed on deposit as well as current accounts. That is important, because the distinction between deposit and current accounts has become blurred, and in recent years, more accounts paying a competitive rate of interest allow a higher rate of transactional activity, so it would be possible for non-resident parents to try to avoid a deduction of earnings order by using only deposit accounts. Given his reassurance that he will look at the matter again, perhaps in another place, I am happy not to press any of our amendments to a vote.

Paul Rowen: May I thank the Minister for Government amendment No. 3, which deals with parliamentary scrutiny—one of our main concerns in Committee? The laying of directions in Parliament gives hon. Members an opportunity to raise their concerns. The other Government amendments are sensible, and we are happy to support them.
	 Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Directions and guidance

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, line 14, at end insert—
	'(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of any direction given under subsection (1)(b).
	(6) The Secretary of State may exclude from what is laid before Parliament—
	(a) any information which the Secretary of State considers to be against the commercial interests of any person;
	(b) any information which relates to an individual who can be identified from that information.'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]

Clause 15
	 — 
	Repeal of sections 6 and 46

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 7, line 26, at end add—
	'(2) In section 4 of the Child Support Act 1991 (child support maintenance) for subsection (10) substitute—
	"In the event that the parent with care and the non-resident parent have entered into a binding Minute of Agreement and—
	(a) each party has received independent legal advice prior to signing the said Minute of Agreement;
	(b) the agreement contains within it provisions for the maintenance of any children whether by regular payments, transfers of capital or a combination of the two;
	(c) there is provision to reconsider any regular payments in the event of a material change of circumstances; and
	(d) there is provision within the agreement for enforcement in the event that either party fails to adhere to the provisions of the agreement,
	no application may be made to the commission with respect to a qualifying child or qualifying children specified in the agreement."'.— [Mr. Weir.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 257.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 41
	 — 
	Lump sum payments

Michael Clapham: I beg to move amendment No. 15 in page 36, line 24, at end insert—
	'(1A) A dependant will receive the same payment as that payable to a person with diffuse mesothelioma.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, page 40, line 36 in clause 49, after 'payment', insert 'for—
	(i) earnings lost,
	(ii) the cost of care incurred, or
	(iii) loss of mobility
	during the relevant period'.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979, there are two lists of payments. One refers to live claimants and the other to dependants. It is worth looking at the reasons that have been given historically for the considerable difference in payments to live claimants and to dependants.
	When the issue was first raised, civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions advised Ministers that the difference in payments had arisen because of the need to keep in step with the common law. That, however, proved not to be the case. In common law the payment made to a dependant is the same as would have been made to the live claimant. I am told that two other reasons were given. One was that the difference in payments was designed to keep in step with the miners pneumoconiosis scheme of 1974. Again, the miners scheme pays exactly the same to a dependant as to a live claimant. Finally, it was said that under the 1979 Act, dependants get an additional payment of £2,392 where the death is the result of mesothelioma, but that still leaves a wide difference.
	I refer the Minister to the example of a person aged 60. Under the 1979 Act the live claimant would receive £31,903, whereas the dependency payment is just £9,295 plus £2,392, making a total of £11,687. That is a wide gap. I am aware that the payments in the first instance will be made from the fund. The fund will gradually increase to payments equal to those made under the 1979 Act.
	Amendment No. 15 calls for precisely the same payments to be made, but perhaps the Minister would consider a graduated approach. There will be a graduated approach in any event as the fund grows, so that payments can be made that are equal to those under the 1979 Act. Perhaps we could extend the principle of graduated payments so that over a number of years payments to dependants would achieve equality with payments to live claimants.
	On amendment No. 16, it has always been a principle that we protect the general damage element—the element that covers pain and suffering. Payments under the 1979 Act are not specified in terms of their heads of damages. Clause 49(3)(b) allows for the lump sum to be recovered to nil. As I said earlier, recovering that amount rather than leaving it as a windfall to the insurance company is a creative way forward that should be welcomed. I want to see the fund increase gradually so that the level of payment equals that provided by the 1979 scheme, but I also want to protect the general damage element.
	Amendment No. 16 provides a way of doing that, which the Minister may be prepared to consider. It allows the lump sum to be referred to in terms of three categories—earnings lost, the cost of care incurred by the claimant, and loss of mobility during the relevant period—and to be reclaimed to nil. It therefore protects the element of general damages.
	Let me read out what my right hon. and learned Friend the current Leader of the House said in 1997. At that time, the Conservative Government used the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 to ring-fence general damages. Politicians of all parties supported that provision. Leading for the Opposition on Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend stated:
	"any sum awarded in compensation for pain and suffering should rightly belong to the individual who has suffered and should not be clawed back by social security."—[ Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 175.]
	The principle was right and just then, and it remains so today. Mesothelioma in particular is an agonising and terminal disease, and if its victims lost out on their rightful amount of compensation for their pain and suffering, that would be a doubly cruel blow.
	My right hon. and learned Friend made the point that we need to ring-fence the general damage element, and my amendment No. 16 would allow that to be done. It would allow the Government to claim back to nil, but as the sum would be referred to under certain heads of damages, the principle of ring-fencing general damages would remain sacrosanct. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. He may not like the drafting of the amendment and may want it to be redrafted. However, given that it maintains the principle of retaining general damages while allowing for the recovery to nil to take place, he might wish to think about taking it on board.

David Hamilton: When we talk about people in such a position, there is a fundamental difference. For example, someone who wins a tribunal award—we have been involved in that—may have to repay the Department a certain amount. However, when a person is at the end of a period and terminally ill, it is surely completely wrong that money should be claimed back for the Department.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that we would seek to maintain that principle of keeping the general damage element. The Minister may want the amendment to be worded differently, but it retains that principle while allowing the recovery to nil.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for explaining the purpose of his amendments. He said that he might want to see graduated payments in relation to amendment No. 15, rather than such payments being identical to those paid to people with mesothelioma. Amendment No. 16 relates, certainly in part, to a debate that we had in Committee.
	The purpose of amendment No. 15 is to compensate a mesothelioma sufferer's dependant in the same way as the mesothelioma sufferer himself. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because it would be highly unusual to compensate a dependant of someone with a disease exactly as if they themselves had the disease.

Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in 1974 the scheme for miners was introduced; it was followed by the 1979 scheme for slate quarrymen. That was modelled on the earlier scheme, which pays precisely the same to a dependant as to a living claimant. As the two schemes have some similarity, I would have thought that there is an argument in favour of the scheme paying dependants the same.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of fact about that particular scheme. However, I believe that I am correct about the generality of compensation: it would be unusual to proceed as his amendment suggests. The Bill already provides state benefits to any dependants of workers who worked with asbestos and who develop mesothelioma themselves. Any financial loss suffered by a dependant of someone with mesothelioma is also already covered in common law damages.
	The purpose of amendment No. 16 is to limit the part of the compensation from which dependants can offset the amount reimbursed to the Government. Claimant lawyers have raised concerns that if defendants are allowed to offset repayments against any part of the award, some claimants will receive no additional compensation. Again, I believe that the amendment is not necessary. The average payment under the Pneumoconiosis Act etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 is about £12,000. It is not intended to fund anything specific—medical treatment or care, for example—but constitutes compensation for the claimant's pain and suffering. That is equivalent to general damages in civil compensation and is different from other recoverable benefits, which may be paid by the state for a specific purpose. For that reason, clause 49 allows defendants to offset the amounts that they repay to the Department for Work and Pensions from any part of a lump sum civil compensation award, including general damages.
	The amendment seeks to limit the parts of the civil compensation award against which defendants should be able to offset repayments. Although it is right and proper that reimbursements for other recoverable benefits should be limited in that way, that is not appropriate treatment for payments under the 1979 Act for the reason that I have just explained. Indeed, if such restrictions were put in place, they would lead to double compensation for claimants. That would have significant cost implications for defendants, including the state. Indeed, the regulatory impact assessment calculated the cost of the proposal on the basis that defendants would be able to offset the full amount. Furthermore, the restrictions are unnecessary given the size of the average compensation payments for mesothelioma. At £120,000, the average total compensation for mesothelioma is 10 times higher than the average pneumoconiosis payment. As such, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which a claimant would not receive any additional compensation following a claim.

James Plaskitt: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for his contributions. I thank him for the amendments, which would allow for a dependant to be paid the same amount, by way of a lump sum payment, as a sufferer with mesothelioma and which would restrict recoveries of lump sum payments from civil damages to particular heads of damages—namely loss of earnings, the cost of care and loss of mobility.
	As my hon. Friend knows, we are funding the scheme from compensation recovery and it will be self-financing. Bearing in mind the limited funds available, we consider that it is much fairer to pay sufferers as quickly as possible in life and pay them as much as can be afforded from compensation recovery. Making payments to dependants at the same rate as payments to sufferers in the new scheme would cost more and we would have to reduce the estimated amount that we are paying sufferers by about £1,000 in the first two years. That would mean that dependants paid under the new mesothelioma scheme would receive more, on average, than dependants paid under the 1979 Act for mesothelioma. That would be unfair, as I think that my hon. Friend will agree. We would have to pay all dependants of those with mesothelioma, including claims made under the 1979 Act, from the new scheme so that they received the higher amount. If we did that, the scheme could not be self-financing, as intended.
	I turn to the amendment about heads of damages. Unlike social security benefits, these lump sum payments are not intended to meet a specific need—rather, they are a payment made instead of, or in advance of, civil damages. It is therefore right to recover them from any part of a later award of civil damages. The amendment would mean instead that some of the lump sum payments could not be recovered in full. That would have two effects: the person would be over-compensated for their loss; and, unfortunately, the amount available to fund the scheme would consequently be reduced. That would reduce the amounts available to other claimants and erode the long-standing principle that a person should not be compensated twice for the same damage.
	I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that the current proposals, which allow for lump sums to be recovered from any element of a compensation award, including awards made for pain and suffering, will not disadvantage the sufferer or their family in any way. They will still receive the full amount of compensation they are entitled to—it is merely that they will not be able to receive it twice. I know that he is concerned about the precedent that that sets, and I can confirm that we have no intention of recovering social security benefits paid for income replacement mobility needs or care needs from general damages.
	Given the limited funds available, the Government's current priority is to pay as much as possible to sufferers in life rather than increase awards to dependants. We also need to maximise the amounts that we receive in compensation recovery. As sufferers or their families will not lose out overall if we recover from all heads of damages, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Clapham: In light of the assurances given by the Minister, I am prepared to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50
	 — 
	Regulations: general

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 41, line 37, leave out '6' and insert '6(1) or (4)'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]

Clause 57
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 43, line 23 , at end insert—
	'(1A) Section (Registered Maintenance Agreements: Scotland) shall come into force on the day after the day on which this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]

Schedule 1
	 — 
	The Commission

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 48, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State.'.
	No. 7, in page 48, line 28 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
	'( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of each report and statement sent under sub-paragraph (4)(b).'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Changes to the calculation of maintenance

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 64, line 31, after 'maintenance', insert 'or aliment'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 70, line 21, after 'Scotland),' insert—
	'(a) in subsection (1), for "satisfied" substitute "of the opinion";
	(b) '.
	No. 10, in page 73, line 6, after 'Schedule 1)' insert—
	'(a) after "paragraph" insert "2(2),";
	(b) '.
	No. 11, in page 75, line 18, leave out '6' and insert '6(5)'.— [Mr. Plaskitt.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

James Plaskitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Since its inception in 1993, the Child Support Agency has had a troubled history. There was broad consent that it should be established because the previous court-based system was not delivering. However, problems with the design and processes of the agency became increasingly apparent through the early years of its operation. Changes designed to overcome some of the problems were implemented in 2003. They were a step towards simplification of the system, not a fundamental change to the system itself. The problems continued. Some, it must be said, were down to the non-co-operation of some non-resident parents who would go to any lengths to avoid their responsibilities to their children. So while the agency adequately served many of its customers, it was offering an unacceptable level of service to too many. The Government therefore decided that the system had too many basic flaws. Further revision would not be sufficient; a clean break was needed.
	The Bill is a result of that decision. It makes far-reaching reforms to the way in which child maintenance is administered. It will lift many more children out of poverty. It will ensure that many more children receive the maintenance due to them. It will ensure that many more parents fulfil their obligations to their children. The Bill also introduces a new scheme to pay a lump sum to sufferers from mesothelioma, providing financial support to anyone diagnosed with this terrible disease. For the first time, people whose exposure to asbestos was not through work will be able to qualify for a payment.
	I would like to take the opportunity to thank the many individuals and organisations who have been so important in the development and passage of the Bill. I particularly thank Sir David Henshaw and his team for their initial report. I also thank the members of the Committee and our two Chairs, and all the Members who have taken part in our deliberations today. I have been encouraged throughout by the positive and constructive atmosphere in which the Bill has been debated throughout our proceedings. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a good-natured determination to ensure that it really does provide the best possible solutions to two hugely important issues.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who led so ably on many of the clauses in Committee. Furthermore, I wish to put on record my appreciation of my honourable Friend from the other place, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who is responsible for child maintenance policy and for mesothelioma policy and has therefore played a key role in the development of the Bill. I thank the Bill team and all those in my Department who have worked so hard on the Bill. On behalf of all the Committee members, I thank the Committee Clerks, who assisted us so ably in our work.
	Above all, I should like to mention the staff of the Child Support Agency. Earlier, I briefly outlined the problems which have dogged the CSA since its inception. Those problems have not been, and are not now, the fault of the agency's staff. Indeed, the staff have made valiant efforts despite working with an imperfect concept and faulty systems. Along with ministerial colleagues, I have met many of our staff in the CSA, and we have all been struck by their dedication and fortitude and by their determination to be part of a successful child maintenance system. They feel strongly that they work on behalf of and in the interests of children, and that has driven them, as it still does, to overcome many difficulties. Throughout, they have remained loyal to their core task.
	The agency's operational improvement plan, launched in 2006 and supported by £120 million of additional investment, is clearly proving effective. Already, at the halfway point, we can see decisive improvements in processing times and diminishing backlogs. We can build on that as we move forward. However, as I said, the overall framework is not working. The agency has multiple objectives that distract its staff from focusing on key outcomes; it has customers who are there through compulsion rather than by choice and do not see what benefits it brings to them; and as a body it has become associated with failure rather than success. The introduction of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is therefore a fundamental reform. The commission will be a non-departmental public body led by an independent board and operating at arm's length from Ministers. We believe that that will provide the focus and operational flexibility that is essential if we are to deliver a successful child maintenance system.
	The agency's staff welcome these changes, which allow them to work more effectively to get more money to children. We have had extensive discussions with staff about the establishment of the commission and the introduction of a new system, and they are very supportive. However, it has become clear during those discussions that staff have had genuine concerns about the proposed loss of their civil service status. Many of them have been dedicated civil servants for many years and are very proud of their position, and rightly so. However, under the proposals associated with the commission, staff would have become public servants rather than civil servants. We have therefore decided to make a change. As before, we will establish the commission as a non-departmental public body, but we will give it Crown status, which means that staff will remain civil servants. An amendment will be tabled in another place to give effect to that change, which brings significant advantages. Over and above some financial advantages, it will ensure that staff in the current agency can look forward to, rather than worry about, the launch of the new commission. In short, we believe that providing Crown status for the commission will considerably increase the chances of a successful start for the new organisation. After a three-year period we will review the position to check that the same advantages continue to exist.
	We have made much progress during the past few months in transforming the child maintenance landscape, and we need to keep the momentum going. We have appointed the commission's chair-designate, Janet Pareskeva, who is already actively shaping the new body. We have announced the increased maintenance disregard. By the end of 2008 the disregard will be increased to £20 a week, with a full disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit, and from April 2010 the disregard will rise to £40 a week.
	We are in detailed discussions with both voluntary and private sector providers to ensure that we can put in place all the key aspects of the new information and support service. We expect to be able to announce a preferred supplier for the national contact centre around the turn of the year. The increased disregard and the new information and support services underpin the wider reforms we are making. Members from all parties have supported the measures in the Bill that will stop parents with care on benefit from being automatically treated as CSA applicants. That means that all parents will have the same choices, whether or not they are on benefit, which should improve outcomes for children as it will enable more parents to agree how best to secure financial support.
	However, we recognise that parents may want help and support to make the decision that suits them best. The commission will provide substantial information and support services to parents to help them decide the most effective type of arrangement for them personally. We expect three main services to be provided: a large-scale national contact centre, supplemented by web access and a face-to-face service where that is considered most appropriate. The services that the commission provides will reach out to low-income families in particular.
	For parents who choose, or need, to use the commission, the Bill sets out a faster and more accurate process for assessing maintenance payments. Rather than asking parents for information, the commission will be able to use Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs tax data to calculate maintenance, and will update maintenance liabilities annually to ensure that they accurately reflect the non-resident parent's ability to pay. We are also developing a provision to permit parents to pass financial information disclosed during certain court proceedings to the commission to help it make fair and accurate assessments.
	We are working across Government and with the financial institutions to ensure that provisions in the Bill that relate to orders to deduct money directly from accounts have sufficient scope to ensure that non-resident parents cannot easily evade them. The Bill does something else of great importance. It delivers for the victims of the highly debilitating and fatal disease mesothelioma. Those provisions, too, have been received in a spirit of consensus and co-operation.
	The Bill introduces far-reaching and much-needed reform to important areas of welfare policy. It moves our country's system of child maintenance on to a wholly new plane. Over time, it will ensure a better start to life and therefore better life prospects for tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of children. Not one of them was responsible for the breakdown of their parents' relationship. None of them should, in any way, be impeded by that breakdown. The Bill will greatly assist in making sure that they are not.

Andrew Selous: This is an important Bill, which is urgently needed to ensure that we secure a better deal for the 3 million or so of our country's children who have had to endure the separation of their mother and father. We need a more integrated agenda for supporting separated families. The Bill is an important part of that agenda, but only a part, and we could learn useful lessons from Australia, where practical support for distance parenting and the establishment of civilised ongoing contact arrangements are provided in a more integrated way than we manage to achieve in this country.
	The Bill will be judged on its success in getting more financial support flowing between separated parents for the benefit of the children concerned. At present, only one in three lone-parent families receive any support from the non-resident parent. Even where the Child Support Agency is involved, only 62 per cent. of non-resident parents with a positive maintenance liability are currently making payments. That means that 38 per cent. of parents who are expecting the CSA to enforce their maintenance payments are being let down, and the success of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission must be judged on securing a swift and significant improvement in those figures. CMEC is, therefore, at the forefront of the battle to reduce child poverty, about which we learned of stalling progress this morning.
	The Bill gives CMEC much tougher enforcement powers to enforce maintenance liabilities. They will only be of any use if they are used, as the CSA has had powers in the past that it has failed to use. However, the measures in the Bill to use HMRC income tax data as the basis of assessment are very welcome and should ensure less aggravation for non-resident parents.
	In Committee, both Ministers were courteous and painstaking in replying to speeches and interventions from all Committee members and I thank them for that. I would also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). Our two Committee Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), ensured fair play throughout. Chris Shaw in the Public Bill Office was an unfailing source of guidance on procedure to me, and my own staff, Christina Keen and Christopher Tufnell, have worked hard during the passage of the Bill. No Committee can complete its business without the invaluable work of the doorkeepers, police officers and  Hansard writers and we are indebted to them as well.
	I agree with what the Minister said about paying tribute to CSA staff. The problems that the agency has had in the past are not their fault. Frankly, they are our fault, in this House, for not setting up the arrangements properly to ensure that child support worked as it was supposed to. I welcome the Minister's commitment to Crown status, also. If that provides reassurance to those working for CMEC, it will be important to the success of the agency.
	Many outside interest groups also helped to ensure greater scrutiny of the Bill and in particular I would like to thank Janet Allbeson of One Parent Families/Gingerbread; Resolution, the family law group; Families Need Fathers; and the Association of British Insurers, in particular.
	In order for the Bill to achieve its objectives, we are going to need a significant change of culture in relation to child support in addition to its provisions. The payment of child maintenance must be seen as an important positive responsibility—the first call on a separated parent's income. The Bill must ensure a fair and efficient system to achieve that, but it will also be necessary to promote the message of positive responsibility more widely, so that those who determinedly refuse to pay feel the shame of public disapproval and do not even consider boasting about their behaviour.
	The CSA has never dealt well with the human side of separation, but its successor, CMEC, has an important opportunity to do so with the provision of the information and guidance which is established in clause 5, and in particular the wider scope for information and guidance allowed for in clause 5(2). It is my wish that the importance of establishing ongoing civilised contact arrangements and support for distance parenting be recognised in the Bill. That is not in any way to make contact a condition of maintenance, merely a recognition of the fact that parenthood is about money and time—financial support and emotional support.
	Indeed, the ongoing involvement of non-resident parents in their children's lives is likely to increase their willingness to pay maintenance. In support of my argument I would like to quote Janet Allbeson of One Parent Families/Gingerbread, who said:
	"There has been a lot of fuss about lone parents supposedly refusing contact. Well, lone parents have said to us: 'We want more contact. Why does he not get more involved?' There is a sort of consensus that, if non-resident parents can be more involved—providing it is safe, of course—it has very good outcomes for children." ——[Official Report, Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2007; c. 67.]
	I agree with every word of that.
	Part of what the information and guidance service will have to do is help separated parents cope with the reality that while marriage and cohabitation are dissoluble, parenthood is not. Divorce and separation used to be regarded a bit like dividing up an estate after someone dies. The marriage or relationship was dead, the fruits of the marriage or relationship were divided and that was the end—subject to ongoing visiting rights and child support obligations, both of which were poorly enforced. Today, around the world, there is a recognition that children need, and usually want, their mother and their father to be actively involved in their lives, as long as each parent is a positive influence and there are no concerns about child abuse or violence. Internationally, there appears to be an irreversible trend towards the encouragement of shared parenting—not necessarily with equal time, but with what is termed "substantial and significant time" in Australia. That would include, if possible, time during the school week, not just at the weekends and during school holidays.
	The information and guidance service established in clause 5 will be able to learn much from the network of family relationship centres in Australia that provide a similar service. I have mentioned Australia rather a lot, and perhaps I should declare a personal interest in that my mother was Australian. The family relationship centres have been swamped by the demand for separation services, a fact that I hope will be taken on board by Ministers as they plan the capacity of the information and guidance service. I was grateful to hear a few further details about that service from the Minister.
	A fundamental change is the proposal to end compulsory participation in CMEC by all parents with care on benefits and the encouragement of appropriate voluntary maintenance arrangements. That will undoubtedly reduce the work load of CMEC, enabling it to cope more effectively with those cases where parents want the active involvement of the state scheme.
	It is obvious that a reduction in the number of parents who separate would similarly reduce the work load of CMEC and Ministers are rightly focused on that. It would be irresponsible not to encourage the Government to do more to support healthy adult relationships as they already do in a small way with their marriage and relationship support funding. Again, the opportunities to do more are enormous and do not require significant funding, merely political will. I hope that Ministers will take encouragement that it was a Democratic President who brought in a welfare reform Act in America in 1996, one of the objectives of which was to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Some of the results on the ground are startling, with local initiatives in some countries and some cities in America experiencing drops in divorce rates of 30 to 50 per cent. On the basis that prevention is better than cure, and in order to give the Bill the best possible chance of producing a well-working system, there should be a greater focus on early interventions to reduce family breakdown.
	I turn now to part 4, which deals with compensation for sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma. We on the Conservative Benches wholeheartedly welcome the provisions, which represent an innovative partnership between the Department for Work and Pensions and the insurance industry. Seldom can public-private cooperation have been so necessary or so important for the sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma and their dependants. The legacy of work with asbestos means that there were 1,969 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2004 and that figure will rise to around 2,400 deaths a year by 2013. Even in 2050, around 500 deaths a year are expected. One in 100 men born between 1940 and 1950 will die of the disease. Life expectancy from the onset of the condition is eight to nine months, which is why the provisions are so important in getting statutory compensation to sufferers within six weeks.
	There has been much common ground among political parties, although we have not agreed about everything on a number of important areas. Nevertheless, the Bill is a move in the right direction as far as child maintenance is concerned and most definitely provides important assistance for mesothelioma sufferers and their dependants. Conservative Members will, therefore, support the Bill on Third Reading.

Paul Rowen: There has been a great deal of all-party agreement on the need for reform of the child support system. We are in general agreement with the broad principles set out by Sir David Henshaw and consolidated in the Bill. Those are to encourage more private arrangements outside the CSA/CMEC, to increase the focus on tackling child poverty rather than reducing public expenditure claims, and to produce greater effectiveness in collecting maintenance and enforcement.
	It is true that during the Bill's early stages, we were concerned that its proposals might be a rebranding exercise that would not provide the root-and-branch reform needed to introduce enforcement measures that would bring about the collection of the money. As the Minister has said, the CSA has been in crisis ever since it was established by the Conservative Government back in 1993. In 1998, Tony Blair admitted that the CSA had lost a lot of public confidence, and described it as a mess in need of urgent reform. Nine years on, the CSA is still in a mess, and we are only now beginning the second attempt to reform it.
	The ultimate objective, however, must be that there should be a reduction in child poverty, which is at such shocking levels in this country. Today, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report that confirms that the Government's approach to tackling child poverty has lost momentum and is in urgent need of a major rethink. The foundation states that there has been no sustained progress in the past three years, and so one in three children in the UK live in poverty.
	The Bill could have gone further on the income disregard with the introduction of the maximum disregard. I regret that that did not take place. A report by the Treasury Committee, also published today, expressed the fear that the pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 is in doubt—a point that I made in Committee.
	This has been a fruitful and enjoyable Bill to work through. There has been a great deal of commitment on all sides to bring about the improvement that we all want to see. I want to thank the Minister, who has always responded to the points that we have raised and has brought forward some changes today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), both Chairmen of the Committee, the Clerks, who have been superb at giving us advice, and Carys Davis, my hon. Friend's researcher, who helped us to prepare our amendments. Indeed, I thank all the people who were involved. I also thank the lobby groups, particularly One Parent Families and Resolution, who have provided invaluable support on certain sections of the Bill, the British Lung Foundation and the Greater Manchester victims of asbestos support group, which gave me several briefings on part 4.
	The Committee was friendly, and we had an open honest debate. We certainly covered a lot of ground. However, we would like some subjects to be returned to in the other place. The charging of fees is of fundamental importance and will affect the reputation of the commission and how the public see it. We would like to see no fees charged for services provided by the commission, unless they are charged to the non-resident parent who has defaulted on payments. That should be the case at least until the commission provides a satisfactory service. It is not fair, we believe, to expect people to pay for a service that is not up to scratch.
	The income change of the non-resident parent that is needed to trigger a review is another issue about which we have had some concerns. A 25 per cent. decrease in income is too large an amount for the level below which a review is not triggered. That could result in some difficult situations for non-resident parents who suffer an income drop of up to 25 per cent., which will, of course, threaten the flow of maintenance to the children.
	We would also have liked the appointment of the chair-designate of CMEC to have been approved by Parliament. I know that that has already taken place, and that she is doing a lot of work, but nevertheless the commission's relationship with Parliament is important. We would like to see future commissioners approved by the House. We have continued to have concern about staffing levels. It is a folly to plan a reduction in staff based on an assumption about a reduction in case load, or even an assumption that the commission will be able to operate adequately at the same level as before the operational improvement plan involved the hiring of new staff.
	I welcome the Minister's announcement that the commission will now have Crown status. I echo his comments about the staff of the CSA. They have had a difficult job trying to make work two systems that have proved unworkable. I believe that establishing the commission on a Crown basis will give staff confidence. If we are to be successful, it is vital that we have the full confidence of the staff as they deliver in what will be a challenging few years.
	We would have liked interest and dividend income to be included in the information that the commission uses to assess how much the non-resident person is obliged to pay. We understand that that does not involve huge numbers of people, but we nevertheless believe that it is important. We have outstanding concerns about non-resident parents who evade their responsibilities and muddle their affairs to avoid paying maintenance. That is not in the child's best interests. We hope for success in the other place in some of the matters that I have mentioned.
	As I said earlier, I congratulate the Government on acting so speedily to deal with mesothelioma in part 4, and on including for the first time payments to people who have not directly worked in asbestos-related industries. It is encouraging for those of us who represent constituencies where asbestos is and will continue to be a major problem that we have been able to get such provisions in place so quickly. It means that payments will be made quickly once mesothelioma is diagnosed. Many people in Rochdale will welcome those provisions.
	With those few caveats, the Liberal Democrats are happy to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Michael Weir: I want to make a brief contribution on Third Reading. I reiterate the Under-Secretary's comments about CSA staff. They are the one group who are not to blame for its problems. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have often had to phone the CSA and I have always found the staff as helpful as they can be, given the computer system with which they have to work. Many have struggled manfully, if that is the right word, with an inadequate system over the years, trying to provide a service.
	I have often felt that my office has acted as a firewall between the CSA and irate constituents who are at the end of their tether. Unfortunately, many CSA staff have experienced that frustration from constituents on the end of a telephone before they reach their Member of Parliament. We have been able to sort out many cases; some are easier, but others seem to disappear into a black hole—and such is their complexity that it is almost impossible to get them out. I hope that efforts will be made to deal with those legacy cases, because it is important to get them sorted out. The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission genuinely represents a new beginning.
	I am pleased that CMEC will have Crown status. That is welcome—the staff in particular will welcome that. The CPS union, which is concerned about the matter, has canvassed me on it. I am glad that the Government have listened, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary on that.
	We had a good Committee stage, with interesting debates, which is not always the case. The Under-Secretary and his colleagues listened patiently and answered questions. They did not change their minds on many matters, but I live in hope that perhaps they will some day. On Report, and in Committee to some extent, we focused on issues that were in dispute, but much of the Bill's content is not controversial: we are all travelling in the same direction and we all want a system that works for children and families. We may disagree on the best way in which to achieve that, but we are generally going in the same direction.
	However, two points need to be considered in more detail. The first is minutes of agreement. I shall not go through the arguments again. I have tried on many occasions, but the Under-Secretary is not yet convinced. Again, I live in hope that, some day, he will see the light and realise that I am right and he is wrong. However, I am not holding my breath.
	Secondly, the systems constitute a missed opportunity. One of the most worrying aspects of the CSA was the existence of two systems, which ran side by side with totally different outcomes, depending on when someone first got into the system. Two people who worked side by side, in exactly the same circumstances, could pay vastly different amounts. The Bill introduces a third system with CMEC, which may lead to further frustration. The Government have clearly set the percentages at a level not vastly different from the CSA system 2. However, nothing has been done to deal with those who remain in the original system. When the Under-Secretary was tackled about that in Committee, he said, pretty honestly, that time would deal with the matter. I believe that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) dubbed that the "biological solution" to the problem. That is a shame because the problem will continue to resonate and undermine CMEC's fresh start.
	I was amazed that we got through Report without the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) taking us to Australia, but then the reference popped up on Third Reading. He gave us the reason for his fondness of Australia. My knowledge of that country comes mostly from watching "Neighbours", but one of the current story lines deals with child custody. I wait with bated breath to see whether we will see one of the child centres about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken so much throughout the Bill's progress.
	I join the general welcome for part 4. Many people in Scotland, Wales and all the former industrial areas suffer from the dreadful disease of mesothelioma. Part 4 constitutes a good way forward to ensure that they are compensated before it is too late. The Government are genuinely to be congratulated on introducing those provisions, which have all-party support.
	The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru support Third Reading. We have one or two reservations, and we shall wait and see whether we can try again. However, the general thrust of the Bill is welcome.
	I hope that the mistake that was made with the CSA will not be made with CMEC. The CSA was underfunded from the beginning, and that led to many of its problems. When it was created I was a practising solicitor dealing with the old system—and frankly, I was glad to get out of it when I was elected to Parliament. I wish all those who have to deal with CMEC well, and I wish the body well for the future.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HEALTH CARE PRIORITISATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Alison Seabeck.]

Richard Taylor: May I first place on record my sincere thanks to hon. Members from both sides of the House and the Officers in the Lobby who virtually led me by the hand to ensure that I was here on time and did not miss a huge opportunity? I believe that I can speak for approximately an hour and 45 minutes, but I reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I, too, would like to get away. I will speak for a little more than quarter of an hour, but not interminably.
	The debate provides a great opportunity for me to climb on to one of my hobby horses—the minefield of health care prioritisation. I want to speak under four headings. The first is, "Why is prioritisation necessary?" Secondly, I want to demonstrate the difficulties with prioritising health care. Thirdly, I wish to welcome the Government's attempts at it so far. Fourthly, and most importantly, I want to suggest the way in which I believe that the Government should tackle the problem and how, coincidentally, that could go a long way towards helping them rebuild the electorate's confidence after the many blows of the past few weeks.
	Why is prioritisation necessary? First, we are all living a great deal longer, so we all have a longer time to be ill—we also have a longer time, I hope, to be healthy. The second reason is the complexities of the treatments now possible. People are now surviving with long-term illness, while children with severe disabilities are surviving long beyond their late teens and early 20s, which was their lot a few years ago.
	I qualified, I hate to say, 48 years ago. When I qualified, we had only about three antibiotics; now there are myriad antibiotics. Beta-blockers had not been invented, nor had modern diuretics, ACE inhibitors—inhibitors of angiotensin-converting enzyme—or antidepressants. There were no ulcer-healing drugs. A heart attack was treated with bed rest and masterly inactivity. In almost 50 years there has been an immense change in the treatments available—treatments that patients will demand, now knowing more about them. There have been tremendous changes in the treatment of heart disease, strokes and cancer. However, we cannot afford everything in a tax-funded system with inevitable cash limits.
	In my request for this debate, I asked that it be entitled "Health care rationing". When I discovered that the title had been altered, I talked to the Table Office and was told to my amazement that the word "rationing" was not really acceptable on the front of Government business papers. I found that absolutely staggering. "Prioritisation" and "rationing" mean pretty much the same, but "rationing" goes that little bit further and suggests that some things may fall off the bottom of the list as being unaffordable. I am therefore talking not only about prioritisation, but about rationing and the things that might fall off the bottom. That is the whole point of my debate.
	I do not often quote Lenin, but in 1936 he said, "Liberty is precious—so precious it must be rationed." I obviously do not agree with him, but I shall pinch his statement and make it: "Health care is precious—so precious it must be rationed." Talking about the national health service's current surplus of £1.8 billion, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Health last week that it was enough to meet "our" priorities. That is my first difficulty—whose priorities are we talking about when we talk about prioritisation? Are we talking about the elderly, the disabled, those with mental health difficulties or ethnic minorities? All those groups have been and continue to be neglected, according to recent reports by Mencap, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Disability Rights Commission. Are we talking about the priorities of the blind, the deaf, pregnant women, those with rare diseases, those with common diseases, those with fatal illnesses, those with emergency conditions or those with long-term conditions? Somehow we have to address everyone's priorities. That is one of the huge difficulties.
	The second difficulty to which I should like to draw attention is the power of various lobby groups. Obviously there are well-organised pressure groups for many of the major illnesses. I fully understand that and have no objection to it, but in any debate about prioritisation one must remember the other people. The illnesses that have a national service framework or national clinical directors, or that have achieved national priority status obviously have a huge advantage. I am not saying that that is wrong, but we must remember the others. I remind the House of what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said in his superb 10 commandments for MPs, in his little book "Commons Knowledge". Two of those commandments were that we must
	"Seek the silent voices"
	and
	"Serve constituents, the weak and neglected".
	Those are the very people we have to seek out; we must ensure that we take their concerns into account. I would much rather call a spade a spade and talk about rationing.
	What have the Government done so far? I shall mention NICE, but I shall not go into much detail. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Health Committee has completed its second inquiry into NICE and is working on its report now, so I would be in huge trouble if I leaked any of it. However, we produced a report on NICE in 2002 and I shall read one of our recommendations set out in paragraph 134. It states:
	"Prioritisation of healthcare spending is an issue of overwhelming importance, and during the course of this inquiry it has become clear to us that a more open debate on healthcare prioritisation needs to take place. Our inquiry has persuaded us that, with so many competing interests vying for attention and funding in an area where resources are finite, it is not sufficient to have implicit healthcare prioritisation. We feel that NICE has been laid open to unfair criticism in respect of the 'rationing' debate and as a consequence of the lack of clarity... here."
	What else have the Government done? Before having a debate on priorities, one has to ensure economy and efficiency. Here, the Government have made a very serious attempt—or the beginnings of one—with their paper, "Better Care, Better Value Indicators". I thoroughly welcome the examination in it of matters such as length of stay, days of admission before an operation, certain surgical procedures and whether they should be done at all, and the prescribing of generic drugs, particularly the statins. These better care, better value indicators have shown a tremendously wide range of performance between primary care trusts and acute trusts, for example. If the quality of service in respect of the indicators were improved to the top 25 per cent. of PCTs and acute trusts, there could be potential savings of £2 billion. I understand that there are further indicators in the pipeline, which I hope will be examined carefully and, if comparable to the first ones, wholeheartedly welcomed.
	At the Health Committee last week, the Secretary of State listed four ways of saving money: best practice, which must, of course, be evidence based; better procurement, cashing in on economies of scale; community-based services, which are obviously cheaper than hospital-based ones; and, of course, the whole issue of drug pricing. The Government are absolutely right about that and all sensible economies and increases in efficiencies must be made, yet it is still a bottomless pit, so I think that rationing is necessary.
	Let me continue briefly with some of the unacceptable results of the current situation. I shall talk about postcode rationing, which, I am afraid, does exist and leads to obvious inequalities and inequities across the NHS. A new anti-cancer drug called Sunitinib prolongs the lives of people with renal carcinoma. In some parts of the country, even though the drug has not gone through NICE, it is available; in other parts, including mine, it is not available. It is very hard for people in my area to understand that when they read about the huge surpluses in the NHS and they know people in different parts of the country close at hand who can get these extra few months of life, while they cannot.
	Another example is the use of cochlear implants for the very deaf. I am afraid that I made a rather tactless mistake in this connection. One of my constituents badly needs cochlear implants, and I was stupid enough to write to her and compare her need with people's need for Sunitinib. As might be imagined, I got a very large flea in my ear. I shall read some of my constituent's excellent letter to the House. She wrote:
	"I think it is unfair to compare my case with cancer patients. I am a person with a severe hearing disability and looking for prosthetic Cochlear Implant in order to improve my quality of life. Does the PCT put a limit each financial year for the provision of artificial limbs or eyes? Do they limit the number of hip and knee replacement procedures even cataract operations to improve failing eyesight? I would like to suggest that everybody should put earplugs in for a day and see how they get on trying to live their normal day either at home or work!"
	She went on to say that my PCT in Worcestershire had
	"the worst record for funding Cochlear Implantations in the whole country."
	In another paragraph, she wrote:
	"Regardless of Worcester PCT's financial position, at a time when the NHS has never been better funded with taxpayers money, you must agree with me that it is completely unacceptable for the PCT to reduce funding for Cochlear Implantation to the detriment of people with a major disability. I am sure the Government and the Minister of Health in particular, in addition to the RNID, would find this completely unacceptable."
	Further examples are treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration, which was covered very thoroughly by a debate in Westminster Hall last week, and fertility treatment. We hear from gynaecologists and obstetricians that fertility treatment varies strikingly across the country. Whether that variability of provision is due to better resourcing of some trusts or to better management I do not know, but I believe that there must be an open debate to decide whether those treatments should be available to everyone, and, if so, what must go in order to pay for them.
	It is sad that Members of Parliament are thought to be able to influence prioritisation. I for one was disappointed by what happened with Herceptin, when the Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appeared to be rather hijacked by a previous Secretary of State. Although it is clearly right for people to be given Herceptin in certain circumstances, it seemed that the whole method of prioritisation had been circumvented, which led constituents to think that Members of Parliament can circumvent the process. That cannot be right, and there should be no need for it.
	How can we make progress? First, we must face up to the problem. Everyone agrees that the NHS must be free at the point of delivery, and it is marvellous that everyone agrees with that, but can provision actually be comprehensive? Sadly, I fear not. However, the appropriate party is in government, and perhaps its members will follow Bevan's words of 1949:
	"The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism."
	Hopefully they are on the same wavelength, believing that priorities and prioritisation may improve the equality of health care.
	As I have said, we must first focus on all the economies. That is why it is good to see in the Government's proposed Bills a focus on prevention and a focus on public health. We must try to persuade the Government that more money spent on prevention in the short term, even if that has to be taken away from acute care, will save money in the long term. We must also focus on staff levels and quality of care, because at present immense sums of money are wasted on litigation, and even if we have to do more rationing of acute care now to improve prevention and to cut down litigation, that could be helpful in the long term.
	An example of the tremendous power that some lobby groups have is demonstrated by the cancer reform strategy published today. Obviously, I have not had time to read every word of it, but I was glad to see when glancing through it that there is an emphasis in it on prevention, which will, of course, not cost that much. It is also keen that one should understand when rationing is necessary and when decisions are not those of rationing.

Doug Naysmith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I cannot refer to him as my hon. Friend, but he is a friend and a colleague on the Health Committee. I agree with much of what he has been saying and congratulate him on securing the debate. He has given two or three examples of treatments that have not yet been assessed by NICE—which are, so to speak, waiting to go through the process—and it is therefore perhaps not surprising that there is some variability in implementation from PCT to PCT. NICE has, however, recommended on a number of treatments that are not being fully funded by some PCTs—good examples are fertility treatments and rehabilitation for cardiac surgery patients. Do we not need to find some mechanism to ensure that PCTs implement decisions that have been made by NICE and recommendations that have gone through it?

Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree with what he says. I have, however, been circumspect in talking about NICE, and I am hoping that our inquiry and the report will address some of those questions, so I will not be drawn into addressing this matter further at present.
	I was about to explain a little in respect of the cancer reform strategy. In the section on community-based prostate health clinics, there is the following significant sentence:
	"Improved support for men in making decisions about further investigation or treatment would not be a form of rationing, but rather a way of ensuring that men have the best possible information and support when making difficult decisions."
	There is rather a move to imply that a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—screening programme is not being rolled out nationwide because of financial difficulties, but that makes it clear that that is not the reason why, and that the reason is that the case for screening is not entirely proven as yet.
	All of this calls for great courage from the Government. To open an honest public debate about priorities, admitting that some treatments might fall off the bottom and get rationed out, will be difficult for the Government to consider. Vitally, however, this subject is also important the other way around, in respect of the £1.8 billion surplus. I know we keep on being told that it is only 2 per cent. of the whole NHS budget, but £1.8 billion is still a lot of money to anybody, and after the restoration of education budgets and the ending of the vacancy freeze on staff one would think there should be some left. I think that people should have a say in what the surplus is used on. For me, one of the high priorities would be to reduce the postcode rationing.
	I shall briefly consider what could be removed from health care provision and what could be given a low priority. I had hoped that we were still using lots of medicines that did nothing, but NICE told us in an open session of the inquiry that it had looked at this matter and found that few drugs that do nothing were still being used. That is sad, because I remember as a houseman writing up in dog Latin super things such as mist. ipecac. co. That was a delightful medicine whose very taste made one feel better. It was supposed to stop one coughing, but it rightly fell out of use ages ago.
	Should we provide cosmetic surgery in respect of tattoo removal or varicose veins? Should we provide travel immunisation or, more controversially, gender change operations, vasectomy reversal or surgery for obesity? What about surgery for some conditions if the patient continues to smoke or drink? That is just the start of a list. How should we take it on?
	 Hospital Doctor, one of these widely circulated free newspapers for hospital doctors, recently reported on a survey of medical opinion, and it called for an urgent review of NHS rationing. Admittedly its evidence was mostly anecdotal evidence of deaths, suffering and complaints resulting from our higgledy-piggledy rationing by local availability of resources.  Hospital Doctor called on the Government to commission an independent review of how treatment is rationed in the NHS. It specifically wanted:
	"More transparency in how rationing decisions are reached and communicated; Stronger and wider-ranging guidance either from NICE or another independent source; Less political interference, from MPs campaigning for certain treatments to individual primary trust management decisions."
	Those are all reasonable aims.
	The Royal College of Surgeons has joined the debate. Recommendation 2 of its response to the British Medical Association's discussion paper, "A rational way forward for the NHS in England" referred to core services. It stated:
	"There are difficult choices to be made regarding the deployment of NHS resources. This College believes that decisions on priority setting, like those on reconfiguring services, should be made primarily on the basis of clinical need and not in the interests of financial or managerial expediency. There must be an open and honest debate about the services which are freely available on a national basis, those which require some form of co-payment and those which cannot be provided by the state."
	The college goes on to draw attention to some of the obvious difficulties that we would encounter were we to embark on such a debate.
	My challenge to the Government is to accept that the NHS is potentially a bottomless pit, and that most people want a tax-funded service free at the point of delivery but that a fully comprehensive service is probably impossible. We thus need to have a debate on the top priorities—the core services—and the lesser priorities, some of which might fall off the bottom of the affordable scale.
	An open and honest debate on the issue might restore some confidence in the Government and show that they are prepared to listen. A debate would also give the Government the chance to demonstrate that they can take advice—something that was thrown into doubt by the treatment of the Home Office Minister in the House of Lords recently.
	If such a debate took place, headlines such as those in  The Guardian today might no longer be possible. Two examples were, "Prospect of moving to a care home frightens two thirds of Britons" and "NHS ignoring human rights of people with learning difficulties". Perhaps the Minister could persuade his ministerial colleague in the House of Lords to add this dimension to his review of the NHS. His vision is of
	"a world class NHS focused relentlessly on improving the quality of care".
	I cannot argue with that, but I wish that we could add to the vision how that is to be achieved and how we can tackle the inequity that exists. We must recognise that we cannot afford everything, and the consultation must address the issue of prioritisation or rationing. I have demonstrated tonight how much support there is for doing so.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on securing the debate. The House benefits from his clinical expertise and long history of fine service to the NHS. He has also become gradually aware of how to be a streetwise politician, as is clear from some of his recent contributions to debates.
	The hon. Gentleman entered the House in the first place through an attempt to have an honest and open debate about health care in his local community. He campaigned very emotively on behalf of the local hospital and succeeded in removing the sitting MP. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand why there might be parameters to people's willingness to be open about the need for change and transparency in the NHS. However, I will not hold that too much against him this evening.
	The hon. Gentleman raises several fundamental issues that we need to address now and in the future, given the changing nature of our society and of health care. It is important to contextualise the debate. This Government have put in an unprecedented level of resources over a sustained period, in terms of the history of the NHS. As a consequence, we have had a massive improvement in patient care, beyond all recognition compared with the state of the health service only 10 years ago.
	Between September 1997 and September 2006, nearly 36,000 more doctors and nearly 80,000 more nurses were employed in the NHS. Waiting times are now at the lowest levels since records began. Only five years ago, thousands of patients waited for anything up to 18 months for in-patient treatment; now, the vast majority are seen and treated within six months. By 2008, all patients will be treated within 18 weeks of referral from a GP in the vast majority of circumstances.
	More than 99 per cent. of patients with a suspected cancer are seen by a specialist within two weeks of being referred by their GP, which is a huge improvement over only 63 per cent. in 1997. More people than ever before who are diagnosed with cancer begin their treatment within a month of diagnosis. We have increased the number of cancer specialists by 45.6 per cent. since 1997, while cancer mortality in people under 75 fell by nearly 16 per cent. between 1996 and 2003. Leaving aside the statistics however, that means that 50,000 lives have been saved.
	We are proud of the cancer reform strategy that we announced today. It puts great emphasis on prevention, but we want to go even further in terms of the advances that have been made.
	In the hon. Gentleman's community, Worcestershire primary care trust will receive allocations of £617.7 million in 2006-07 and £679.3 million in 2007-08. Those allocations represent an extraordinary cash increase of £130.4 million, or 20 per cent. over two years, although it is about the national average.
	The hon. Gentleman quoted Lenin and Nye Bevan. I shall not be able to emulate him in that respect, but I shall mention that John Lennon wrote "Imagine", a song that gave an idealistic view of the world and which said that we should be optimistic and positive about the future rather than grudging, cynical and negative. At different stages in the development of the NHS there have been people who have preached doom and gloom; they said it was not doable, not possible or no longer viable. Much of the reform in the Conservative Government's agenda for health between 1979 and 1997 was underpinned by the notion that if they eroded public confidence in the national health service that Labour created, and which we believe in, over time the public would stop believing in the NHS, too, and wholesale privatisation would be the inevitable consequence. I am delighted that they were never allowed to finish their mission. In any case, the British people would have rejected it overwhelmingly.
	There is no doubt that we live in a changing society and the health service cannot function in isolation. People are living longer, and they suffer from more challenging conditions. There are medical and technological advances. Patients have different expectations nowadays from 10, 15 or even 20 years ago, so the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the health service has to adjust, not just to present-day realities, but to our changing society.
	The hon. Gentleman says that people with learning disabilities are not treated properly in the NHS and that there is a failure to respect the dignity of older people. He should talk to some of his professional colleagues and the managers in the service about why some of those things happen. It is not because there are not enough resources to fund the system properly. That cannot be used as justification for not treating older people with dignity and respect and not treating people with learning disabilities properly. We should not entirely let NHS management and professionals off the hook in terms of their responsibilities to some of the most vulnerable patients. It is important that we talk about quality, accountability and responsibility.
	A number of factors will influence an equitable and fair NHS in the future. The building blocks are in place. NICE is world-class by any comparable standards, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for being positive about its role, as well as for being realistic about some of the difficulties and tensions the organisation faces. NICE is consulting on its technological appraisal methodology, and I urge hon. Members and members of the public to comment on whether that methodology should be changed in any way.
	Whatever the system, if it comes up with popular results, an organisation will be applauded to the heavens, but when its decisions are more controversial or unpopular the organisation will inevitably attract significant flak and criticism. That is why we must be consistent in our support for the integrity and independence of NICE. The organisation is relatively young and new, but it does a very good job indeed.
	The other factors that will influence the long-term sustainability of the NHS, its universality and the comprehensive nature of what it offers people, include resource allocation. We are consulting on the resource allocation system in the NHS. What are the characteristics and ingredients that make up the formula that determines how resources are distributed across the system? Factors such as the nature of a local population, need within the community, poverty, the number of elderly people, sparsity and rurality are all important when looking at whether the distribution of resources across the system is as fair as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of where we spend the existing money. As the Minister with responsibility for social care, mental health and children's health, I think that there is an issue about significantly shifting resources in the national health service from acute NHS care to early intervention and prevention, and community-based services. That requires courage from people such as the hon. Gentleman, who is respected for his clinical judgment; such people should argue fiercely that no change is not an option in terms of best patient care and that the position of Her Majesty's official Opposition, which appears to be a moratorium on any change to services, is highly irresponsible and not in the best interests of patient care.

Doug Naysmith: I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, but I did not agree with him wholeheartedly when he talked about a widespread discussion of the options and slightly disparaged politicians, various experts and perhaps even one or two clinical colleagues. There have been a number of attempts in this country and America to find out what the public think about the distribution of resources. There are a couple of famous studies, particularly from America, in which people are asked to rank the spending priorities. They tend to go for cancer and flash subjects at the top, and disabled individuals and mental health services come at the bottom. It is really important that politicians, who understand the need for the distribution of resources, have a say in what happens. It should not just be the experts. Does the Minister agree?

Ivan Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend about most things to do with the health service. He is absolutely right. It is important to understand that we spend large amounts of taxpayers' money on health. Health is a massive concern to every voter and citizen. The notion that comes from some clinicians—I do not think it comes from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—that politicians should butt out entirely of decisions about the national health service is disingenuous.
	We have to define appropriately the respective responsibilities of the different players in our national health service and its relationship with other bodies. I will come to that in a moment. What is the responsibility of the Department of Health nationally, of Ministers and senior officials in terms of policy, and of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts? What are the responsibilities of front-line clinicians and other NHS staff? What power—and accountability—should we give to individual patients, users and carers, as well as local communities, when it comes to influencing decisions that affect the NHS and social care in their areas?
	We know that there has been an increasing role for overview and scrutiny committees and local authorities, and we want to see that role expand. What is the proper place for local elected members to have some sort of influence? I am not sure that we want to have a stale debate about whether local government should run the NHS or whether the NHS should take over social care, because inevitably we will then get into debates about organisational restructuring, which could lead us down a road that we do not need to go down. However, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, we have to address honestly accountability, respective responsibilities and relationships among the different players.
	I was talking about shifting resources from acute care to early intervention and prevention. It is important that people do not see this as ideology, because it is also about patients' choice and expectations. The vast majority of people want to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Medical and technological advances—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—mean that there is no rhyme or reason as to why many treatments that have historically and traditionally been undertaken in hospitals need to take place in a hospital building. Equally, we need to reassure the public that our investment in primary and social care, and community-based health provision, will be put in place so that the shift in resources does not lead to a diminution in services, but results in things being done differently, with a stronger approach on patient care.
	In the context of finite resources, we have a responsibility to consider health inequality. It cannot be doubted that the family into which citizens are born and the postcode area in which they happen to live can have a dramatic impact on their quality of life, life expectancy, and health and well-being. Part of being honest and transparent in the debate—Nye Bevan would be proud of a Labour Minister saying this in 2007—is not apologising for recognising that in any funding allocation system, it is entirely appropriate to focus a significantly greater proportion of resources on those in the greatest need. We need to make it clear that people in the greatest need can be living in relatively affluent areas, so the way in which we target additional resources to address health inequality is also a challenge.
	There is a question about the relationships among the national health service, local government, social care, public health and the wider range of services that contribute towards citizens' well-being in local communities. If we are going to move towards prevention and early intervention, and recognise that the ability to have a job has a direct impact on many people's health and that their ability to access education and training contributes to their well-being, we will need a step change in the integration of local government, the NHS, the voluntary sector and the private sector in every local community. Over time, we need a more integrated approach on not only the commissioning of services, but their planning and, in many cases, collocation. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the NHS understands that many of its objectives will be achieved only through its connectivity with local government, the third sector and the private sector.
	Practice-based commissioning will be incredibly important. On the basis of a population needs assessment, we will be giving practices a lot more power to commission services. That is another vehicle to ensure equity of access as well as quality of care. The priorities in the NHS operating framework obviously determine the view of the chief executives of PCTs and provider trusts on what is important when allocating resources and focusing on delivery. The operating framework is crucial, as are the outcome framework for the NHS and the new performance and outcome framework for local government. It is important that we try to secure synergy in a world in which we are trying to achieve more of our policy objectives through local area agreements. Such agreements bring local agencies on the ground together around shared objectives, shared accountability and shared responsibility.
	I urge the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), as members of the Select Committee on Health, to start conducting serious analysis on the new performance framework locally and its implications for securing the health and well-being of a local population. All of us—Ministers, officials, Health Committee members and parliamentarians—need to start looking holistically at the health and well-being of citizens and local populations. We will be able to do that only if we examine not only connectivity among the NHS, local government, the voluntary sector and the private sector, but the power, control and choice that we put in the hands of patients, users and carers.
	Lord Darzi is undertaking tremendous work in the other place on the next stage in the national health service's transformation. The question is how we move from having fixed the NHS and rebuilt its foundations—the Government are proud of that—to creating a world-class, cutting edge national health service. A couple of weeks ago, my noble Friend Lord Darzi became probably the first Minister in history to have saved two lives in 48 hours. I cannot think of many politicians who have been praised for saving one person's life, but to save two in 48 hours must be a historic achievement. Lord Darzi is a massive asset to our ministerial team and to our development of national health policy. His views and aspirations are based on his everyday experience; the same is true of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. Lord Darzi is a world-class clinician in his field, so it is important that he is at the heart of what we are doing, and is working closely with an excellent Secretary of State to make sure that we go from having fixed the NHS to creating a world-class system.
	The Secretary of State has asked me to lead the work on the case for an NHS constitution. The notion of a constitution is exciting because it would be an important vehicle allowing us to enshrine the rights and responsibilities of patients in the NHS, the relationship between central Government and the NHS regionally and locally, and the NHS's connectivity with other agencies on health and well-being. I have been asked to examine the issue. We will talk to people, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to submit any ideas that he has on whether we ought to have a constitution, and if so, on what the content ought to be. I hope that his contribution will be slightly more constructive than that of Her Majesty's official Opposition. They produced a constitution that they said would give clinicians independence, and said that they were creating a board that was at arm's length from Government. When they were asked to whom the board would be accountable, the answer was the Secretary of State for Health—a curious notion of independence and transparency. The debate on whether we ought to have a constitution, and what should be in it, gives us an opportunity to address some of the legitimate points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about patient, carer or user pressure. In a healthy democracy, there will always be such pressure. It is the responsibility of the elected Government and parliamentarians to absorb it, to listen to the heartfelt views of people who feel passionately about causes and to make decisions that are in the best collective interest. That is at the heart of the responsibility of an elected Government in a democratic society, and at the heart of how responsible parliamentarians ought to behave. I am delighted to say that we will never live in a country in which pressure groups have stopped fighting for the things that they care about most. Sectors may still feel that they are the Cinderella, including the mental ill-health and learning disability sector, and historically, to some extent, the child health sector. Carers increasingly tell me that the health service does not treat with sufficient respect care partners who look after older or disabled people. We should not be afraid of patient pressure; we should welcome it. Our job is to weigh up all those views and all that passion, and to welcome and encourage it, but then to make the difficult judgment calls that elected politicians are charged with making.
	The Government are proud to have created the national health service. We are proud of the fact that we have rebuilt its foundations and rescued the NHS. One of our fundamental values and principles is that the NHS must remain free at the point of use, irrespective of means, and funded through general taxation. That is non-negotiable—there can be no compromise or dilution—but I believe that we can retain that fundamental set of values and principles while addressing responsibly and seriously the legitimate concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the changing nature of society and the massive medical and technological advances that have taken place and will continue to take place. As part of the Lord Darzi process, I look forward to ensuring that we have the building blocks in place to move from an NHS whose foundations have been rebuilt to a world-class national health service.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock.